Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive207

May Grundle2600 suggest changes to articles covered by his topic ban at his talk page?

Unresolved

 – While the proximal situation is resolved per the editors' commitment not to create further such threads, I remain curious about the question in general, though perhaps this is best reserved for WT:BAN. –xeno^talk 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC), User agrees not to. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! There's a template for everything! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to a thread at User:Grundle2600's talk page (User talk:Grundle2600#Would someone who isn't topic banned please add these things to the Holocaust article? / permlink), I would like to solicit opinions as to whether such threads are appropriate (see also a previous thread, "I found a mistake about a living political person. Would someone who isn't topic banned please fix it?").

While they don't appear to violate the letter of the topic ban (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600: continued problems and User:Grundle2600/Community sanction) they surely seem to violate the spirit. However, I am not a regular in terms of handing down or enforcing community sanctions, so additional input would be appreciated. –xeno^talk 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them." Therefore, I am allowed to make suggestions, and other editors are allowed to adopt those suggestions, as long as they have their own reasons for doing so. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, in that the wording of WP:PROXYING there appears to provide a clear exception to the assume good faith guideline. So the banned user suggests an edit, someone does so and is challenged on it, the burden of proof will be on that 2nd editor to prove that they acted in good faith; there would be no assumption first. IMO Grundle, you're going to put other editors into jeopardy by acting on your suggestions, esp if they are not exactly in good standing (cough) to begin with. Advice? Stick to the areas outside of your topic ban, 100%. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I agree with you, because I do not want to put other editors in jeopardy. Thanks for commenting. I will stop making such suggestions on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this discussion should be "unresolved". Grundle should be able to propose things on his talk page. That's an ideal place for discussion. It doesn't interfere with article work in any way and no one is compelled to read or respond to his suggestions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging unresolved per your request to gather more opinions. –xeno^talk 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose we create a separate talk page to discuss whether or not this issue has been resolved. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who "proxied" an edit for Grundle, I think it depends is an important answer to the initial question. For example, Grundle posted a source which he claimed refuted something in an article, and wanted the article changed. Actually, the source he provided supported what was in the article, so I was able to use his source to provide additional support for the statement he wanted taken out. If Grundle is providing sources which other editors can read and judge critically and decide one way or another, independent of Grundle's wishes, how to incorporate that information that should be fine. If Grundle simply posts his desired changes to his talk pages, and other editors are simply enacting his wishes uncritically, that is a very different thing. Its all about the notion that Grundle's proposed changes should be filtered through more trusted editors. As long as that filtering goes on, I see no reason to disallow changes based on Grundle's suggestions. If there is evidence that edits are being made without such filtering, and are happening automatically without any critical analysis of Grundle's proposals, then that would be a problem. --Jayron32 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, I think that's an excellent example of why this shouldn't be that much of a concern. He's just tossing those things out and it's up to other editors to take it or leave it, and do whatever they want with it. Pardon the crude metaphor, but if people are able to use manure to grow a garden then what's the harm? -- Atama頭 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He can post ideas all day long and no one is compelled to act on them. And he might come up with something useful and neutral, i.e. worthy of inclusion. "Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a topic ban is to separate a user from an area where they are causing problems. This has two main purposes as far as I can tell: to bring calm to the articles, and to help the user to drop an obsessive interest on a given topic. Allowing the user to make suggestions on their talk page violates both parts of this. It obviously doesn't help the user to move on, and it also brings the user and their (usually) problematic content agenda right back to the articles from which they were topic banned, with a fair likelihood that the locus of disputwe will simply be moved to the user's talk page instead. Allowing people to walk round topic bans by making comments on their talk page seems to me to break the spirit of the topic ban pretty comprehensively. Inability to let go and move on is also not a good sign. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone does want to start a discussion at WT:BAN, this recent WP:VPP discussion (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_70#Banned_users) might be of interest. Rd232 ^talk 11:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So long as the suggestions remain constructive, I fail to see how the project is damaged. Anyone choosing to act on a suggestion bears the burden of those edits. Grundle is being transparent and, it seems to me, acting within his topic ban. It seems to me if anyone is unhappy with the particular POV that Grundle posts on his user page, then perhaps they should just ignore it. Ronnotel (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I think you are wrong. This is an open invitation to people to evade a topic ban, solicit editors to proxy on their behalf, solicit only those editors who are sympathetic to their POV, and in sundry other ways is antithetical to the idea of banning. If someone is topic banned it's because we don't want them getting involved in that topic. It only happens when there have been significant problems. Do we really want to actively encourage people to grandstand on their talk pages in the hope that someone will come along and take up the cudgels on their behalf? I think it's a really bad idea. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The archived VPP proposal was designed exactly to avoid solicitation, and instead to get neutral editors to review suggestions. The motivation for bothering is partly that topic/banned editors can easily email sympathetic editors - and if there's no onwiki outlet for their thoughts, that's more likely to happen. Which is bad for transparency, amongst other things. Rd232 ^talk 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That's the "give clean needles to addicts cause they're just gonna shoot up anyways" approach, which I do not particularly agree with. As noted above, topic bans are handed down because a editor has demonstrated to the community a complete inability to function within that area. Being involved in a topic means a great deal more than simply hitting "submit" on an article, so topic bans should remove someone from the arena completely; no grandstands, no sidelines...not even the nosebleed seats. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how appropriate that metaphor is, but funnily enough, I do agree with Harm reduction. Rd232 ^talk 14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, this is why there is a distinction between 'page' and 'topic' bans, and why both have been used to deal with disruptive editing. As the names imply, the former applies to specific pages (or groups of pages), while the latter applies to specific topics. If the community finds that an individual's editing at a particular page is harmful, the damage may be contained by a page ban. (Perhaps an editor frequently files frivolous or vexatious 3RR reports; a page ban from WP:AN/3RR may be in order.) On the other hand, if the community feels that the approach of an editor to a particular topic area is problematic then it may issue a suitable topic ban. We have both tools in our toolbox, to be applied to different situations as deemed necessary.

Encouraging an editor to evade his topic ban through userspace posts and the like often doesn't solve the problem. (It may defuse the 'lone wacko' problem by moving ranting away from useful talk pages, but that isn't generally the trouble where a topic ban placed.) Typically, the topic banned editor is surrounded by a constellation of (typically fringe or minority) supporters, plus a coterie of self-appointed Defenders of the Downtrodden (who are usually much worse wikilawyers than they realize, and who often very effectively entrench the community's support for a ban). Instead of the directly disruptive editing taking place on the article or it's talk page, the disruption becomes a travelling circus that spreads across an assortment of user talk pages and administrative noticeboards. The topic-banned editor figures he has little more to lose, and his entourage is filled with stubborn, self-righteous indignance. It's not a good thing.

A topic ban is a topic ban. If we meant page ban, we would have said page ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am keeping my promise to no longer make such recommendations on my talk page.

That being said, simply because I am curious, I would like to point out that there has not been any official answer to my request of a clarification of Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users, which says (the bolding is mine): "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them."

That bolded part means that topic banned editors are indeed allowed to make suggested changes on their own talk page. I am sticking to my promise to avoid making such suggestions. But I am still curious to hear a clarification of the bolded part from an administrator.

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the purpose of that language isn't to specifically allow for what you want to do (make suggested changes) but to inhibit Wikilawyering. I can imagine a situation where an editor wants to make a change to an article, on his own initiative and for a good reason, but isn't allowed to because a banned user just happens to support that same change. Also note that the language only applies to what a non-banned editor does, not what a banned editor does. In other words, it allows someone to add material to an article that falls under your topic ban, but it doesn't allow you to make the request in the first place. -- Atama頭 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why is this marked resolved again? There appears to be an active discussion with several editors noting that allowing Grundle to make proposals on his talk page is appropriate.

Secondly, the numerous personal attacks and smears in this thread are unfortunate and ironic. It does show that there are many problems here that have nothing at all to do with Grundle, and this kind of abusive and uncivil behavior towards a fellow editor working in good faith is not acceptable.

I haven't seen any policy argument for disallowing an editor from making suggestions on their talk page. And in fact it's a very good way for an editor who has had difficulty to get feedback without interfering with article editing (the purpose of the ban) and it is completely transparent unlike the e-mail campaigns and cabalism that go on here.

Many of those speaking out in opposition to Grundle being allowed to make suggestions on his talk page are editors who disagree strongly with his perspectives. Going after editors because we disagree with them is abhorrent, and no one has provided a good argument for how the project will be disrupted by allowing someone to discuss content and sourcing issues on their talk page. That is exactly what talk pages are for and it is a great way for an editor to get input and feedback on their content building ideas. It should be noted that Grundle has been a good sport about enduring stalking and harassment by a large number of POV pushing stalkers hanging about on his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The above is precisely why this user is the subject of an active RfC; butting in to toss around accusations of bad faith, insinuations of cabal activity and the like. No one here is "going after editors because we disagree with them", and this boilerplate ChildofMidnight attack like is getting rather pathetic, quite frankly.

As for the matter at hand, IMO I don't think WP:PROXYING had topic bans in mind when it was written, as it seems to be more focused on editors who have completely lost access to the Wikipedia, and not just a narrow portion of it. A user who is barred from a topic should be barred completely, with no wiki-lawyering around the edges. If the section on proxy editing needs to be adjusted to reflect topic bans, than that is the direction to go here. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A choice comment from the RfC, made by Grundle: "I agree with ChildofMidnight's claim that there are editors who are trying to censor the encyclopedia by removing relevant, well sourced information. Every edit war that I have ever been involved in was of the type where I added relevant, well sourced material, and other people kept erasing it." An absolute classic. Of course there is no conceivable good faith reason why the terrible people should not be censoring Wikipedia to remove relevant and well-sourced material, because having decided that the material is relevant and well-sourced any removal is naturally motivated solely by a desire to censor the content. Oh, sorry, that was a bit sarcastic, wasn't it? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record as it were, and as some well know, this "other people kept erasing it" complaint has been going on for 7 or 8 months now and is at the core of the problems with Grundle's editing, but in a slightly different way than JzG suggests above (though the cry of "censors!" is also obviously incredibly problematic). It entails one of the more stunningly inaccurate (and stubborn) readings of NPOV I've ever seen, and despite repeated efforts (as in dozens of times) by multiple editors to explain the problem to Grundle he persists in arguing along these lines. This goes back to at least May ("An article gets balanced by adding to it, not by erasing from it. If you think my addition is unbalanced, then please add to it what you think needs to be added. But please don't erase what I wrote"...!!!!!....those are my exclamation points, I needed them!) and has come up repeatedly since then (e.g., "Every editor is a human, and all humans are biased. If everyone gets to add what they want, then the article will be balanced. I don't erase other people's sourced stuff"). As the comment in the RfC suggests, I do not think this attitude of Grundle's has changed at all, and it obviously is pretty much the exact opposite of what writing in an NPOV fashion is about (and forget about the brevity problems if "everyone gets to add what they want").

Given that Grundle has been misreading our most fundamental policy for well over half a year and that any attempts at explaining it seem to bounce right off, it's rather amazing that Grundle is still around. I think we're beyond last chances at this point, but unfortunately most people don't know the sheer amount of time and effort that folks (including me, but a lot of others too) have put in trying to get Grundle on the straight and narrow, all to no avail. Nothing is going to come of this particular incident, but we'll be back here again, and I for one am quite sick of trying to deal with this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a compelling point, and this is precisely why the topic ban should not be wikilawyered. I suspect that Grundle has become adept at manipulating people's good faith, and this thread is just another example of how easy that can be. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd Dramaout starts in two weeks

Just a quick reminder, the 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout begins in exactly two weeks from now. Any admins who want to participate just sign up at the page and keep an eye on the date. Hopefully we can make this event even more successful than the first one. :) -- œ^™ 19:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Bah, humbug. I vote we block Giano on day 1 just because. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You do the block, then I'll contact Viridae via IRC to do the unblock, and then crosspost requests for review to WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:RFAR. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't Bishzilla do the unblocks for Giano? I know Viridae handles unblock requests via WR, I didn't know he was working for Giano as well now. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• What? Have I have been usurped at both? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I know, we should have a rouge admin strike over demarcation. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why do we need a dramaout? Am I the only Wikipedian who has a life? (Although I'd like a job too. I can contribute more content when I'm employed.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I for one have my popcorn ready. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I hate popcorn. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Let's MFD the stupid thing the moment it goes live. Nobody who supports it would dare to speak up. ;) Durova³⁹⁴ 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Except the drama lovers who will rush to protect it and create huge ANI debates over it... unless, of course, I block them all with talkpage privileges disallowed! Sorted!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The irritating thing about about this program is its presumption that everything outside of article space is wasted time. People can focus on content without preening about it and without putting down their peers who resolve vandalism, etc. It's more than a little hypocritical. Durova³⁹⁴ 00:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I only do it to be trendy, cause all my t-shirts went out of style, and I haven't got much left... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Heehee. :) Durova³⁹⁴ 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is voluntary, for those that need it, and as an alternative there is also Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaonly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The work you do

While this would most likely target administrators in general, this is a message to all Wikipedia editors in general.

I do not edit Wikipedia but I felt that it was about time that somebody reinforced the appreciation literally millions of people around the world owe all of you for your hard work here. I know that many are drawn away from Wikipedia because of those who add false information onto Wikipedia, vandalize pages, or otherwise do things to this website against morals and the media has come down hard on Wikipedia more than once for many reasons over the years such example as the recent claim of someone dying in Hawaii and there are several reasons why Wikipedia is often subject to critism and sometimes even controversy.

I just wanted to let you all know that no matter what the media wishes to say about Wikipedia, there is a reason the website is one of the top six most visited places on the world wide web - it is essentially a free encyclopedia for people, made by people. You all work for a good cause and many of us who use Wikipedia regularly for research and other things, never really take the time to extend our appreciation for the hard work you all put in. I am aware that plenty of you dedicate several hours of your time each day to help this well-intended project that many of us have so long taken for granted.

Basically, I just wanted to personally express me appreciation for Wikipedia, and remind you all that work so hard that there are people out there who will support Wikipedia until the very end and are always grateful for all that you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharp Light (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. --Jayron32 06:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, in fact thank you for making me smile, not often a post on here does that--Jac16888^Talk 06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What "...very end"? What do you know? WHY WERE WE NOT TOLD!!! - Heh, heh! Thanks, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It's not often something friendly and nice is posted here. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

School blocks

With regards to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Over 50 warnings and still no block..., why are we so soft on shared IP addresses such as schools, universities and companies that repeatedly and frequently contribute vandalism? We get an awful lot of vandalism from these IPs. The guidance at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses is vague on the issue. Are there any rules of thumb of when to impose {{anonblock}} or {{schoolblock}}, and if so do they need tightening up? Fences&Windows 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually use a scale when blocking IPs regardless of their ownership: 31 hours, 1 or 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year. Some steps may be skipped on my discretion. As to why we don't just out-and-out block them: perhaps we are hoping that a constructive contributor may be born during the times they are unblocked. –xeno^talk 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, escalate with each step and use a finer trigger for each block. If an IP with a long block log has just come off a 6 month block and all the new edits are vandalism, I'd have no hesitation in blocking for one year. The guidance is vague to allow admins to use their common sense. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be any more guidance, and "overblocking" is universally more destructive than "underblocking". If a disruptive user or probematic IP goes unblocked after a vandalism or two, then someone will get them eventually. However, if an IP which could be the source of good edits is blocked unneccessarily, we lose potentially good editors. In every case, if there is any doubt, admins should always err on the side of "not blocking". --Jayron32 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As a student, I feel that having school blocks (for vandal IP) would more helpful than not. Most kids either A)Play computer games, B)Use social networking, C)Research, or D)Vandalize wikipedia in school (pre-college that is) rather than contributing. As wikipedia is frowned upon by many academic teachers, I feel the potential benefits are insignificant, especially when a IP is known for persistent vandalism. Heck, in my AP class yesterday while we were supposed to be looking up the Belgian massacre in the Library I know for a fact that 3 classmates vandalized wikipedia and none in my AP class added/fixed anything. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Leavitt

Resolved

 – Indeed, the article's talkpage is the proper place to proceed.--Tone 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article about Jim Leavitt is currently edit protected. However, when the protection went into place, a poorly worded sentence regarding a very recent incident was locked into the article. Since it is sure to be a high traffic article, I hope we can edit the sentence to make sense and reflect the current situation. I have a proposed wording change on the Talk page. Angryapathy (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT / WP:DOLT

A discussion on my talk page has led me to make this change to WP:NLT as a reminder and in the hope of avoiding a recurrent problem; also this change to {{uw-legal}}. I think having NLT and DOLT separate is obscuring a problem and maybe we should consider merging them. Or maybe we can just fix it in text, whatever. Anyway, I encourage discussion but probably only in one place, wherever folks think that should be. I'm in an especially mellow mood having just watched again the Christmas special of Father Ted, which is a work of comic genius. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The wording of {{uw-legal}} is off. It goes

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you.

This actually says, amazingly, and I've read it three times now, that considering legal or other "off-wiki" action against other editors or against Wikipedia itself is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility.

Seen in the light of Wikipedia editors' recurring BLP violations, and the specific scenario described in WP:DOLT, we are essentially telling people, "our editors can write defamatory nonsense about you, ruining your life, but you are not allowed to consider any action whatsoever against us".

We need to make clear what we mean: We don't allow people to use our talk pages to make threats against other editors or Wikipedia, and we don't allow them to edit Wikipedia while contemplating or being engaged in legal action. But we should not be so presumptuous as to prohibit people from thinking about legal action against ourselves, and in those cases where complainants are genuinely wronged, we should extend a hand to them rather than telling them, in essence, that "complaining is forbidden". --JN466 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edited: [1] --JN466 05:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

More checkusers needed?

Is it just my impression or does it a bit long for checkusering to be performed? The queues aren't that long (a dozen requests or so). Is it just a vacation thing? Pcap ping 01:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably part of it. I haven't done any checks since before Christmas due to vacation, myself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Block not expiring when it should - urgent

Resolved

I recently blocked BilCat (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation. While I initially set the block to 12 hours, I reduced it to 3 hours shortly afterwards on the grounds that Bill is an editor in good standing. While the block should now have expired, Bill is finding that he is still blocked and receives a message stating that he's been autoblocked. When I try to manually lift the block I get a message saying that the block has expired. Does anyone know what's going wrong here, and if so can they please (urgently) rectify it. Please note that Ajh1492 (talk · contribs), who I also blocked for 12 hours but reduced to 3 for the same edit war may also be affected. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Nick, you need to look through the list of active blocks to find the autoblock. What I do is list the last 500 blocks and then do Ctl-F to search the list for the name of the blocked user. You can then lift the autoblock as all should be well..... Which si exactly what I did. The block log is at Special:BlockList but I always follow the link from the header in the users block log. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoblocks for the underlying ip are for a maximum of 24 hours, so any sanction reduction to less than that period needs to effect the autoblock. The easiest way would be to perform an unblock of the account, which brings up the "remove autoblock" option, unblock the ip also, and then reblock the account for the new tariff which creates a fresh autoblock. As long as there are explanations given in the summary then the block log makes clear all the reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change arbitration probation?

Hi. I'm not an admin, but a few days ago I was aware of an ArbCom case regarding climate change and article probation. I was going to comment on it, but I can no longer find the two cases in the requests. Have the cases closed? Could anybody provide me with a background on how this conflict started, or some links to Wikipedia pages that would help? Either here or on my talkpage would be fine, but I would like as concise a summary as possible. The issue is that I think global warming is currently accelerating, but I would need to work on this more before the information could be included into more articles, as I am trying to provide the "bigger picture" to the current state of this issue. Please direct me to the appropriate discussions. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See here and here where MBIsanz closed both applications as rejected at around 2300 on January 5th. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change where a discussion was recently held resulting in community sanctions being levelled on articles related to climate change. --TS 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

International vandal

Hi. I'm a single IP user, but I need to report this: A brazilian user IP 201.0.202.118, who is vandalizing Lula, o filho do Brasil was banned 3 months in Portuguese Wikipedia by multiple registrations/accounts and vandalism (his accounts are banned forever). He uses sock puppets here and there, and he is vandalizing lots of pages there. He is like "radical communist", only edits political pages. He must be banned here too. Please, punish him and his multiple accounts and IPs. 189.4.240.56 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change for Template:Unblock reviewed

As per what was said here, I used the {{edit protected}} template on the unblock request talk page, but it was declined. Can we please keep this section from archiving so we can actually get consensus on the matter?— Dædαlus ^Contribs

As I commented intimated at the archived thread, this is a solution in search of a problem (or a solution to a problem that occurs very rarely). The template gives admins an idiot-proof code segment to copy and paste, so they won't get the parameter wrong. Those that do should be trouted =) –xeno^talk 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say that in the archived thread. What you said was that it shouldn't such a big deal to bring to this noticeboard, and that I should just request it through {{editprotected}}. You also asked for an instance when it happened, which I provided. What precisely you said can be seen below:

It seems just to be adding some alternate names for the parameter? No big deal - should've just been proposed thru the {{edit protected}} imo. Has this ever actually been a problem, though? The unblock template even gives us a idiot-proof copy and pastable code segment... –xenotalk 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to read between the lines =) –xeno^talk 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier to alter the coding to allow for errors, rather than alter the coding to make the user aware of their errors. Further, it is beneficial to the blockee to know why they are blocked, and there won't always be someone around to spot a misuse of the template.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish this to be archived until others comment on the issue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for this, but I do thank you for the suggestion Daedalus. It's never really bothered me. I'd say post another section on the talk page just suggesting the code change. Maybe you'll get more comments from people who actually pay particular attention to templates. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing through a protection template

Resolved

 – Self-revert, headed to talk page --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do Administrators have any right to edit through a protection template as User:Blueboy96 has done here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was all right ... in fact, I was just getting ready to go back to add a source I missed. Besides, if the information is reliably sourced, what's the problem? Blueboy96 02:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You have no right to do that and as an administrator you should realize that. What special right do you think you can ignore the discussion that other people have contributed and wasted their time typing when you come along and don't bother even commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You should revert your addition and go to the talkpage like everybody else and outline your desired addition and add the edit request template and see what other involved editors have to say about it, your rising above process like that takes away all reason for anyone to bother. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

During this discussion User Blue Boy went back to the article ignoring my comments and made another edit through the protection template. Is this correct or is it a joke? Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blueboy96, admins aren't supereditors; the sysop bit doesn't give you any more editorial rights than mere mortals. If you're making uncontroversial changes, it should be easy to gain consensus on the talk page. If you're making controversial changes, you have no business doing that on a protected article. I'm pretty confident this is written on a policy page somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it: WP:PREFER. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As far as I was aware, if an article is fully protected, admins shouldn't be making content edits through protection. Edits should be limited to obvious and trivial fixes and fulfilling talk page requests that appear to have consensus. --Onorem♠Dil 02:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought that it was noncontroversial to merely expand that he was fired ... just rolled back and heading to the talk page. Blueboy96 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Already resolved...and I'm fine if this is the last comment since drama sucks...but I think another question worth asking is why was editing through full protection even an option? I asked the protecting admin, who appears to be offline now...but don't see in the history what brought the protection on. Am I missing something in oversighted or deleted revisions or something? --Onorem♠Dil 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more the case that the software only has three settings: everyone edit, autoconfirmed edit, or admins edit. That's how it was designed. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maps and Admin "Talk Page"

Resolved

 – No admin tools required. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the maps on Wikipedia are useless, because the location they are showing, shows no other reference points, so they are meaningless for determining where the location is, it might as well just be an isolated point or dot with nothing else around it, which is what these maps are. They may look nice, but most people want a map to find out where something is, in relation to something else, like where they might be located, and where the map location is in relation to where they are located. For example the map of Coto De Caza, has no reference points at all. To find out where it is, you'd have to cross reference it with a second map, and if you have to do that, why would you even waste time with the wikipedia map?
Then the author says, if you want to make a comment, go to his "talk page". Except the words "talk page" aren't a link, and you can't find the "talk page" unless you want to spend an hour looking for the needle in the haystack. I know this because I looked for it and couldn't find it and didn't have 15 minutes to spend, trying to find the link to "make a comment" on this useless "map". Its not a map, its just a picture.

Thank you, Barbara Mau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.65.219 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The creator of the map is User:Shereth; once you are at his user page (where it says, "You may pester him with questions or requests for assistance on his talk page", which I assume is what you refer to), just click on the 'talk' tab at the top of the page to access his talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Except it says 'discussion', not talk, and I guess people sometimes can't make the connection. --Golbez (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The tab of Shereth's talk page? It is labelled 'talk' when I look at it (all talk page tabs are labelled 'talk' for me). Perhaps it is a quirk in the software somewhere? But thanks for pointing that out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For me as an anon all talk page tabs (whether articles' or users') are all labelled clearly "discussion", not "talk". Maybe you're using a particular skin or a particular localization? 80.135.18.144 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's a side-effect of Friendly. It changes discussion to talk.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

How do I turn my userpage on? Where are the selections so that I can choose one? MoodFreak (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Go to User:MoodFreak and add whatever you want to be displayed on your user-page into the edit box. Any subsequent questions of this nature are better directed to our help desk, please open a section there if you need any further help. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Can one or several administrators please deal with this? There is a ridiculously large backlog that has been there for about the past week. Thank you! Insorak ♫ talk 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheGreenMartian/TGM's Vandalism Tools (it's a joke)

Resolved

 – Resolved...ish. I could do with an extra pair of eyes to make sure I did it right...thanks! GJC 05:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin take action on this please? This MFD has been open since December 21st, 2009. It appears to be a no consensus keep to me, but I would feel more comfortable if an admin had a look. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I got it, but with a different result than you came up with. The article has now been deleted. However....would one of you "big kid" admins please un-screw my formatting and make sure I've done all the necessaries? This is my first admin closure of an XfD (yeah, I know) and I'm apparently crap with hatnotes and the like. I'm going over the instructions on closing one, but....Look, I'm just a little insecure about these things, hm?  :) (Seriously, though--someone double-check me, please. This really is my first closure.) GJC 05:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that's why I asked for an admin to have a look as I am not good yet with determining consensus.  :) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 05:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I approached the situation with a little MORE caution simply because I started from your conclusion--the "delete" votes seemed to have a bit more policy behind them, and one of the main "KEEP"s was the user himself. But it was good to consider that someone else had read consensus differently--I think you did fine, actually. GJC 06:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, good close. Just for future reference, my only advice would be not to bother saying "always open for deletion review"--every deletion is technically open to DRV, but the system works best when it's rare, so the default assumption should be that an XFD close is final. Just some friendly advice, though--carry on closing. Chick Bowen 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, another editor came along and fixed it.  :) ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot?

Does anyone know if 128.174.251.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is really a bot and if so whose? It's been blocked twice today. I've asked Cobi as it may well be his. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, that has to be Cobi's, or some terrible co-incidence. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

user:Linguisticgeek

Resolved

 – nothing to see here, legitimate image taggings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An admin should check the latest edits of this user, who is on tagging spree on all the articles, I edit, and all the artices he think belong to my caste! Amusing for me, but surely not for wikipedia. Kindly have a look. Ikon ^No-Blast 14:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean his image taggings, those that I've checked seem all soundly argued and legitimate. Sorry, nothing we can do to avoid this kind of legitimate scrutiny; those images need cleanup. (However, I have advised him to avoid multiple automated notifications to uploaders, as per a recent discussion we had elsewhere showing that this may have a somewhat aggravating effect.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Earth

Resolved

 – Incorrect venue. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed in the past few months that every time you click on a coordinate, you get the nearest street address? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to require intervention from users with the sysop user-right: it belongs at WP:VPT, I think. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even know that that existed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem; it's quite an interesting page, I keep it on my watchlist :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens.rf block review

Taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Damiens.rfc block review. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating userpages for other editors

What are the guidelines for editors creating user pages for other editors, eg User:Scienceofficer which was just created. Sure, we create talk pages to welcome new users, but I always though of user pages as pages to be created only by the user. I'm probably wrong but couldn't find any guidance. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is the WP:UP#OWN section of WP:UP: "In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your user page, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons." Personally I think that WP:UP#OWN makes it clear that creating user pages for other users is not advisable, unless done so with their permission or to add a sock tag or similar. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion also. I'll ask the editor, who I am sure is acting in good faith, to stop. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I typically delete this per G6 or G2 whichever seems more appropriate.  Done in the present case. –xeno^talk 16:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think creating user pages for new users is a bad idea all around, the red user page is one of the markers that recentChanges patrollers look for for changes that need a closer look. Since the user's response to Dougweller made it seem like they were planning to continue doing this, I left them a further request to please stop. –xeno^talk 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is only appropriate if the editor as requested help from another editor to create their userpage. That's a totally different matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested we've tightened up our guidance at Wikipedia talk:User page, the more comments on that the better please. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrat rights: adding desysop

Per the discussion at WT:RFA#Unchecking the box, an RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Your collective input is desired. -- Avi (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Refactored the header to make it more clear what this RfC is about (pretty impossible to tell from the current description posted here). Nathan ^T 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review request - User:Neutralhomer

User:Neutralhomer was indef blocked by User:Jehochman for "Disruptive editing: Wikihounding". Jehochman asked that admins considering unblocking speak to them first or obtain "a consensus based upon a substantial discussion (e.g. 24 or 48 hours) at WP:AN". Neutralhomer requested unblocking, but this request was denied by Blueboy96.

Although Jehochman stated that they had been "giving one last chance" to Neutralhomer before blocking them, Jehochman subsequently unblocked Neutralhomer. I have requested that Jehochman discuss their decision on AN just as they had requested of other admins, but they do not appear to wish to discuss the issue.

Neutralhomer has been indef blocked three times and has a long history of blocks and admonishments for harassment, sockpuppetry, and other violations of policy, with similar blocks as User:Orangemonster2k1. As the most recent target of Neutralhomer's harassment, I do not think it is appropriate to accept the promises of a user who has already failed to live up to similar promises. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am free to refactor my own blocks without asking permission. This thread is useless conflict-making. As an unblock condition, Neutralhomer has agreed to stop commenting on Delicious carbuncle. Sadly, DC has refused my request to let Neutralhomer go in peace. Jehochman ^Brrr 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My concern is not for myself, nor is my motivation some kind of "revenge" on Neutralhomer. There is a very clear pattern here. It is only reasonable to expect that we will see it played out again and again unless Neutralhomer either retires or is blocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Admins are typically permitted to revert their own actions on their own remit... Has there been problematic behaviour since the unblock? –xeno^talk 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I often disagree with JeHochman, and I have nothing to civil to say about Bluboys admin practices (which are ridiculous, note i'm still not sorry BLueboy). I do however agree with the lifted block. Perhaps DC should drop the WP:STICK Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I'm not questioning the ability of admins to undo their own blocks, just the wisdom of this particular unblocking. Given that Jehochman asked for other admins to seek consensus for unblocking and that another admin declined to unblock, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for a discussion of this decision. There is no need to look for problematic behaviour following the most recent unblock, since Neutralhomer's block log indicates that this is not the first time they have agreed to abide by such conditions. Just look over the blocklog and the history of complaints at AN and ANI. I am aware that some admins feel protective of Neutralhomer, but even their staunchest advocates must admit that it is only a matter of time until they are blocked again. And then likely unblocked in short order because "they promise not to do it again". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say this, Delicious carbuncle, but sometimes you just have to put the stick down and let it go, for now at least. HJMitchell You rang? 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Delicious Carbuncle's request below to comment on the unblock request, I see absolutely no problem with Jehochman's unblock. He undid his own block, based on terms he set. I see no problem with that at all. An admin can't wheel-war with himself! --Jayron32 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban request: User: Delicious carbuncle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result: Consensus to enact Gladys' topic ban of Delicious carbuncle.  Skomorokh  14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• DC, I am going to echo what others have said here, albeit a bit more emphatically. NeutralHomer has been placed on strict orders to stay away from you, under penalty of blocking. I have ZERO dogs in this hunt--I feel "protective" of neither Homer nor you, nor for that matter PCHS-NJROTC, around whom the original conflict centered--and thus I am an "uninvolved" admin. With that being the case, I am hereby proposing that in the matter of those two editors, you be placed on the same terms imposed upon NeutralHomer. To wit:

User User:Delicious carbuncle is not to discuss, either explicitly nor by allusion, the actions, behaviours, editing, or existence of the users PCHS-NJROTC and NeutralHomer, either together or separately. This means: You are not to interact with them, discuss them, raise issues about them, comment upon issues they raise, or follow them around. As in NH's conditions, if they engage you or show up at an article you are editing, you may respond to them, calmly and appropriately.

And please, don't worry: if NeutralHomer antagonizes the community or violates its norms, the rest of the community can deal with it when the time comes. You no longer need to trouble yourself about this editor at all. It did not have to come to this, but you've shown a nearly-complete lack of self-restraint in discussing these two users, despite pleas from numerous members of the community. It's got to stop, and I encourage the rest of the community to support this proposal in order to bring about that end. GJC 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. GJC 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with a understanding that this isn't a free license for the other editors to bait him into breaking a sanction. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support, its growing weary. A mutual interaction ban for all of these parties would be best, with, of course, HIAB's caveat. --Jayron32 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support I was going to make a similar comment, in that concerns relating to other editors less than optimal conduct is too often conflated by Dc into time sapping postings when the results are not what they desire. I didn't because I felt I have previously been involved in the PCHS-NJROTC matter. However, since an uninvolved admin has commented I would like to make clear my belief that issues that might have been resolved by some judicious sysopping have been rendered into drama fests by Delicious carbuncle, in pursuit of his pound of flesh and more. Time to place a lid on it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "In pursuit of his pound of flesh and more"? Far from trying to impose my will on the outcome, I have brought the issues to the appropriate forum, supported my allegations with evidence and diffs, avoided making personal attacks, tried not to respond to the personal attacks and accusations coming my way, and made clear that I was willing to accept whatever outcome the community felt was appropriate. I am not seeking revenge here, just asking for a calm reevaluation of an admin's decision in a single case. My issue in the PCHS-NJROTC matter (and apparently I'm about to experience it again here) is actually the failure of most participants to actually deal with what is presented and instead allow things to develop into something that is annoying to all involved. If you don't think there was anything wrong with the unblocking of Neutralhomer, just say so. No drama required. I find it a bit troublesome that admins are so willing to hand me a topic ban yet so unwilling to review the unblocking of someone who has been blocked several times for harassment including my own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Your last sentence negates your previous points entirely. The reason why you want the unblock reviewed is because you don't like it; you cannot point to any policy or guideline. You have very recently acted in exactly the same manner with regard to another editor whose sanctions you did not agree with. You want Neutral Homer and PCHS blocked, possibly banned, for an extended period; the community wishes for the disruption to stop. Sanctions have been enacted upon the other editors to this end, and now we are discussing including you for that purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Of course I have my opinions about what would be appropriate for each editor, but I have not attempted to force my view on anyone. I believe that PCHS-NJROTC should have been very clearly told that it is neither appropriate nor correct for an editor to unilaterally ban another editor (especially after specifically agreeing not to do so). I don't think a block would have accomplished anything. I also believe that PCHS-NJROTC is obviously lacking the judgment and maturity required for WP:AR and related activities, so a topic ban would be appropriate. I accepted the proposed voluntary topic ban (which apparently doesn't include WP:AR and has no specific terms that can be enforced). I believe that Neutralhomer has violated the community's trust too often and should have remained indef blocked. Again, asking for a review of their unblocking is not forcing my opinion on anyone. I am unlikely to change my opinions, so perhaps this should be a ban discussion, not a topic ban discussion. I am getting tired of having to defend myself against these distortions, so if someone wants to close this up, I'm not protesting. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

DC: "I have brought the issues to the appropriate forum, supported my allegations with evidence and diffs, avoided making personal attacks, tried not to respond to the personal attacks and accusations coming my way, and made clear that I was willing to accept whatever outcome the community felt was appropriate."

Yes. You have brought them, and brought them, and brought them, and brought them. You have "supported" your allegations over, and over, and over, making clear only that any actions short of the ones you sought would result in yet another resurrection of the same issue, as soon as the current iteration was archived. And if, as you say, you "avoided making personal attacks", eventually your insistence on bringing this dispute became IN ITSELF a personal attack. And incidentally: I do not think there was anything wrong with the unblocking. I also don't think it was even remotely wise for you to have opened this thread. The fact that he was sanctioned in the first place, for most people, would have been enough to ameliorate the anger at his original actions; bringing this here smacks of vengefulness, not "dispute resolution". GJC 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Gladys j cortez seems to be conflating three distinct incidents into one event, which fosters the impression that I am the problem here (which is unnecessary, since I have annoyed enough people that the ban will be enacted regardless). I opened a topic on ANI about PCHS-NJROTC's unilateral declaration that a user was banned (and I dug it out of the archive because it was never addressed). I attempted to open a new thread asking for a topic ban on future vandalism-related issues for PCHS-NJROTC. And I opened this thread about Neutralhomer, which, again, is unrelated to PCHS-NJROTC. The circumstances surrounding each issue are very clear, should anyone take the time to actually read the evidence I presented. You may not agree that anything need be done about them, but I would hope that you see the cause for concern. I know that I am not alone in my opinion, but the point is moot since no one seems willing to act in the face of the obvious dissent.

Perhaps part of the problem here is the assumption that I am angry. I am not angry. I am frustrated with the way issues are being dealt with here, but my frustration is not directed at Neutralhomer or PCHS-NJROTC. That comment only adds to that frustration because it makes some invalid assumptions, not just about my state of mind, but also about my motivation. I am neither seeking revenge nor attempting to ameliorate a dispute, I am attempting to prevent more of the same abusive behaviour that Neutralhomer has demonstrated in the past and is highly likely to do again in the future. Is the Wikipedia community so dysfunctional that it cannot recognize the pattern?

At no time in this have I asked for anything but a considered discussion of the issues at hand, and I have been very clear that I will stand by whatever outcome the community decides. "Drop the stick" is not a considered response to a new thread. Why are people surprised that I am dissatisfied with the outcome when the outcome seems to be "I'm not reading what you wrote because you're only trying to cause drama". I doubt LessHeard VanU means it in the same way, but I agree that a little sysop action early on would have prevented a lot of what followed in the PCHS-NJROTC issues.

Clearly my actions have annoyed a lot of people and I apologise for that. Bring on the topic ban! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason these issues have been conflated--and I highly doubt that I'm the only one that's done so--is that they all arose around the same initial issue. Oddly enough, when you raised the first notice re: PCHS-NJROTC's actions, I was in agreement with you. I had dealt with what I felt to be his overzealous vandal patrolling and entirely over-the-top sleuthing efforts in regard to the Mmbabies vandal, and I agree with the sentiment that the talkpage connected with that issue is fairly horrifying. I also felt that the user's reactions were way, way out of line, and agreed that it seemed like there was a bit of strategy behind that reaction (namely, to deflect attention from the real issue). However, something went wrong, and here's how I see what happened....When Shell seemed to endorse PCHS's actions, you got pulled into a back-and-forth with PCHS which ended up biting YOU in the backside. One of the very useful senses that one develops by watching AN/ANI for a while is the sense of when another user is shooting him/herself in the foot, which (IMHO) PCHS was very well on his way to doing at that point. Unfortunately--and please understand, I completely see how this happened and I honestly can't say I might not have gotten caught up the same way--you made the classic mistake by the person who actually cares about what they're trying to fix--you allowed yourself to get involved in the back-and-forth-ing and unwittingly drew negative attention to yourself. Had you stuck solely to the message, namely "I feel that this user has developed a needless focus on one brand of vandalism and in trying to ferret it out, has violated many core WP policies"--had you done that instead, between your calm insistence and PCHS's increasingly emotional defenses, I believe you might have accomplished what you were looking to do originally.

When that didn't happen, though--when people started focusing on your responses to PCHS--it seems as though it stopped being about "this person is damaging Wikipedia in these ways..." and ore about "this person is damaging Wikipedia and pissing me off, and furthermore nobody is listening and that's pissing me off even MORE..." and it seemed to become more about WINNING than about solving the original problem. And at that point the whole thread just started spinning out of control. I've said this to a few users, and I'll say it here as well because I think it's applicable in this case: When you call attention to a problem, and you don't get the reaction or outcome you're looking for, and as a result you get more and more insistent about the magnitude and urgency of the problem, you quickly stop being seen as part of the solution, and begin to be seen as an entirely NEW and SEPARATE problem. I think this is what happened to you here, just about the time the first thread was archived back around Christmas. There were still a couple of places you could have stopped the speeding train--by leaving each thread alone once it was archived, or by disengaging from people who posted on your talk page against your wishes, or by disengaging on any of the several instances when you were requested to do so...but unfortunately those were not the actions you chose to take. The comments you made before in regards to your motives--that you were neither vengeful nor angry or even that the PCHS issue was unrelated to the NeutralHomer request--all of them may very well be true, and I'm willing to accept those assertions--but all of those statements in my original posts represent, I believe, a reasonably fair picture of how these actions have been interpreted by the community. Opening the thread about NeutralHomer, while ostensibly unrelated, does in fact have its genesis in the PCHS issue--because what was NH posting on your talkpage about in the first place? The PCHS issue. And especially after NH had promised as a condition of his unblock to stay away from you--here was another place where the train could have been stopped. Had you waited for an example of NH violating the ban on interaction, an example which you seemed to believe would happen regardless--had you waited til then, you would have found yourself fully on the side of right again. By opening it when you did, though, you brought focus back to yourself once again, and as Jehochman said, it looked as though you were the one who wasn't going to let it go.

I realize that this is WAY past TL;DR stage, but if you internalize some of what I've said here, I think it will do wonders in smoothing your Wiki path. Please, before you bring or re-instate any issue in the future, please take a moment to consider how the community as a whole might view the thing you're doing. Will they see it as you MEAN it--as an honest attempt to solve a problem--or will they see disruption due to your timing, your tone, your phrasing, your manner? Far from "angry power-hungry admin", I'd actually just like to get everyone off your back too--and a ban on further interaction seemed like one way to both end the trainwreck in progress, and to get your attention long enough to pass along information about how, in my completely independent view, you ended up in the soup. Truce? GJC 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GJC, for taking the time to write that. It helps me to understand why people are so exercised about my recent posts. Let me clarify two points. First, I have some faith that Neutralhomer will be able to stay away from interacting with me if they are under the threat of yet another block, so that does not figure into my belief that their block should not have been lifted. Second, Neutralhomer's animus toward me predates anything to do with PCHS-NJROTC. Neutralhomer had an earlier, unrelated episode of repeatedly posting on my talkpage despite being asked not to (and with me simply deleting the posts unread). Again, this isn't about me, it is about preventing this from happening to someone else in the future. Let me say "I told you so" now, since this topic ban will prevent me saying it when it happens.

Not surprisingly, your analysis of the situation is disheartening. You seem to be admitting that there are genuine issues here, but that you are willing to ignore them because I appear to you to be trying to "win" and you don't want to give me the satisfaction. Another admin said basically the same thing, except saying that I appeared to be "bullying" PCHS-NJROTC, so they would not act on my concerns lest they appear to be supporting bullying. Great. Am I the only one who sees the problem with this?

The topic ban is inevitable and I accept it. It is unnecessary if the aim is to prevent me from interacting with PCHS-NJROTC or Neutralhomer, but it will prevent me from continuing to discuss the issues addressed here, which seems to be fine with everyone. I will consider the topic ban enacted as of right now, so I will be unable to respond further here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I have already clearly declared that I have no desire or intention of interacting with Neutralhomer, so this is unnecessary. The issues with Neutralhomer predate my invovement with Wikipedia, let alone any interaction with them. This is unrelated to PCHS-NJROTC in any way. It's pretty clear that the community doesn't appreciate my persistence, but to sweep this under the rug and contend that I am the cause of the problems instead of the reporter of the problems is not going to resolve the situation. If people are actually so concerned about "drama", why not simply deal with the unblock review in good faith, rather than starting topic ban discussions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is necessary to stop you writing about these editors, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I think I would have figured that out on my own. Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion here, I actually have no trouble restraining myself from discussing these editors. I thought that the community might appreciate my bringing these issues forward, but apparently I have seriously misjudged what the community values and strained everyone's patience at the same time. I dropped any mention of PCHS-NJROTC after the earlier AN thread was "resolved" with the help of Jehochman, only to find that PCHS-NJROTC was being wrongly associated with this request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Been here too many times under this subject. Wknight94 ^talk 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support minimise disruption. Viridae^Talk 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support so the drama can end and this poor horse can finally have a peaceful rest. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It's necessary in some cases to stop editors interacting with each other when it is clear that they can't get on with each other. DC, would you prefer this, or an indef block, because that is where this is headed if you refuse to let the dead horse be buried. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Suppport: DC cannot seem to disengage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• MAke it so. Bilateral interaction bans are the obvious solution here. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's enough of a pile on to close this thread. Could another administrator please do that. Thank you. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Woooo!

We need a redirect from Woooo! (protected) to Woooo! (How I Met Your Mother episode). -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

and WP:RFPP is thataway, for future protection needs (or {{editprotected}} on the talk page). Syrthiss (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You might enjoy...

a quote I came across as a usenet sig:

the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it.

— Oliver Wendell Holmes

For fools substitute your Wikipedia POV-pushers of choice. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An aside: apparently, and incredibly, the English Wikipedia does not have an article on communicating vessels. There are reasonably good articles on German, Dutch, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias (and several more, if you follow the interwiki links), with very pretty pictures (and a rather nice counterexample picture on the Dutch wiki). The Italian Wikipedia has even an article on Stevin's Law, which apparently nobody on English wikipedia has ever heard about. And then they say that Wikipedia is full, and all basic topics are actually covered -- eh? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: the Italian Wikipedia even has an article on the Hydrostatic Paradox! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

See this link for the original context of the quotation. Chick Bowen 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Or this. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

But of course Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself linked to the Illuminati, is widely known in popular culture. Coincidence? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy, Tom, keep it dark, they're not supposed to know. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

En Wiki now has an article on communicating vessels. :-) Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Hydrostaticcruft. Also: fails WP:N, as it contains no references to The Simpsons, Pokemon, or Family Guy. GJC 09:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

juice plus

Resolved

 – Very stale! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is quite old but was on the ANI talk page. Feel free to archive straight away... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

urgent need for admin help at juice plus talk page

editor rhode island red has accussed a BLP Dr isadore rosenfeld of misrepresenting his relationship with NSA the makers of Juice Plus, he is trying to make a case that as a paid keynote speaker once at a convention, speaking on the subject of the dangers of patients getting medical info and advice on the internet, not about the product Juice Plus that he is lying when saying on air at foxnews twice that he has no financial relationship w/ juice plus. RIR is trying to infer a coi despite the very well respected dr saying differently. I think there is great danger in allowing a rouge editor to defame some w. a blp, aka the office space suit currently underway. His reason for doing this is to attempt to control content allowed in the article so that nothing remotely "pro" juice plus make its way in the article that he has controled for 5 years keeping it very biased and negative against the product despite many sources that disagree with his opinions and slant on the science. he wont allow any view point but con to stay in the article. His overzzealous obession with this article and anyone who disagrees with him recently had him thinking it was within his rights to post an editors name, spouses name, fax nummber, home number and home address on wiki, thus admin allison had to blank it, yet HE got no admonishment or even a hand slap. he is seriously bordering on cyber stalking of JuliaHavey and should be stopped from that, as well has being allowed to bias/negative an article against wikifoundation principles.65.82.134.3 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is not the place to put this. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've marked it "resolved" and "stale" – it's a bit too late for anyone to do anything now! ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been already dealt with over OTRS, so it's okay to mark resolved - Alison ^❤ 09:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpat34721 Topic Ban

I request my topic ban be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Please consider:

• None of the points I made in my defense were addressed by the admins, including the fact that I self-reverted the edit in question prior to being reported in violation of 1RR

• My edits have been constructive and I think a fair reading of them would show that they have improved the article and moved it closer to WP:NPOV

• This cozy exchange on the the 2Over0's talk page (and a similar one on BizMo's) is problematic:

Things are starting to back up at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Needs some uninvolved admin intervention (that's you!) rather than the usual suspects bickering William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started but would like some second opinions. --BozMo talk 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The above gives the appearance of administrative meat-puppetry. We have an involved former admin, recruiting intervention from two sympathetic admins (and in fact the admins who administered the ban) requesting they do what he ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley] is no longer able to. This is unethical and unfair.

• This accusation in the comments sections by WMC is untrue

WMC (again) I think this is fairly simple. J had broken the 1RR parole on this article very clearly by the time of this report. After* this report he has continued reverting [69].

The edit in question was not a revert. We had reached consensus that contentious labels should be avoided. My edit simply removed one that we'd missed when we went through the article to eliminate them.

• I volunteer to take a 1 week break from editing if my request is granted.

Thank you JPatterson (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looking over your contributions history, and the discussion at the Requests for Enforcement page, it does not appear you were sanctioned for a single edit as you appear to claim above. I see discussion of a history of tendentious editing at the article in question, and your request for review therefore does not seem to substantively address the concerns noted. I am neither-here-nor-there regarding any sanctions over this issue per se, but if we are going to discuss your sanctions, don't you think you need to address the issues you were sanctioned over and not merely over the last edit you happened to make before you were sanctioned? --Jayron32 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The request for enforcement was for violation of the 1RR rule. If I was banned for another reason, a new action should have been opened so I could have an opportunity to respond to those charges. The tendentious editing comment refered to other editors, not me. My only edit of this section was an attempt at compromise. (The other revert was in a different section). I didn't even think it was a revert because I didn't undo, I tried to synthesize the two competing versions (by other editors).I have edited on both sides of this issue. My primary focus has been in trying to get other editors to agree that we should be chronicling and not judging the controversy. (e.g. here JPatterson (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC with below) Actually, I don't see where exactly it says violation of the 1RR rule was the only issue being discussed. In the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section there seems to be problems with regards to tendentious editing at the intro to the article in general and not just a single revert by yourself, which serves as the locus of the dispute. Two admins, BozMo and 2/0 both agreed that there was a general problem as uninvolved admins and enacted the sanctions. Besides William M. Connoly's request to BozMo and 2/0, what evidence do you have that those two were materially involved in the article in question? Do you have diffs that show they have involvement in the dispute, or have expressed an opinion about which side they are favoring? That someone involved asks another admin to review a situation does not automatically make the second admin involved. I'd like to see more evidence of involvement by BosMo and 2/0, especially as defined by WP:INVOLVED, before I can decide heads or tails of this. I am not dismissing your claim, I just want to see evidence why these two were inappropriate in enacting such sanctions... --Jayron32 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The notice that was posted on my talk page say it was for violating 1RR. The sanction page says it was violating the terms of "Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation", which near as I can tell is the same thing. probation = 1RR. I am an inexperienced WP user and do not have the skills to provide the evidence you ask for. I question the propriety of an involved, and highly controversial ex-admin recruiting other admins to act (what do you think he meant be "this means you"?) on his behalf. JPatterson (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Jpat34721, but I started looking into Jpat34721 (talk · contribs)'s contributions about twelve hours ago (not continuously, obviously), as some of their edits had struck me as problematic in light of the recently-imposed community sanctions. Jayron32 is absolutely correct regarding my reasoning as closing administrator. I also stress that this is a ban from Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident only - your contributions to other climate change articles and other areas of the encyclopedia continue to be welcome. A quick glance at my talkpage and recent contributions indicate that I have been heavily involved in trying to restore a more normal editing environment in this topic area. There were several open requests, and I had not commented there for four days, which I assume is why WMC requested that I take a look. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a hotly contested article. Tempers have flared. If you'll read my talk entries you will find that (for the most part) I have tried hard to keep a cool head and keep the discussions moving towards consensus. Note too that this ban was instigated by one strongly partisan editor who made three requests for bans in one day, all against editors he perceived to be hostile to the changes he desires. Not one specific problematic edit of mine has been raised, either here or on the request for action page. Just nebulous charges by Connelley of misbehaving prior to his recruitment effort. JPatterson (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, what evidence do you have that BozMo and 2/0 were involved admins in the dispute before they enacted the sanctions. Being asked by an involved editor to review a situation does not make them automatically involved. Do you have any evidence that WMC specifically sought them out for a specific result, rather than the WP:AGF idea that he sought them out because he believed they would make a neutral, dispassionate review of the situation and act accordingly. What evidence is there that these admins misacted besides the request from WMC to review the situation? --Jayron32 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comments above. Don't you think, given the controversy surrounding this editor, that the process would be better served if he would let it run it's natural course. He didn't insitute the request for action, why is he getting involved at all?JPatterson (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You state above that you are inexperienced? Come now... You've been editing since January 2007, long enough to learn how to read the history tab on an article. Are they active editors at the article? Have they expressed an opinion as to which side of the debate they fall on? I am entirely unfamiliar with the dispute myself, I just want to know what makes the conclusions of BozMo and 2/0 invalid? --Jayron32 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've edit three articles with a three year break in between. I am not an experienced editor by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps I am misusing the term involved. I don't know how to tell if someone has edited in the entire global warming space or if there is a pattern of cahoots here. It just seems unfair when someone who is clearly involved recruits in this manner. One doubts he went looking for a neutral ear.JPatterson (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't judged the bredth of your editing, I just checked when your account had been registred. Regardless, it looks like we're just going around in circles here. I'm going to disengage at this point. I really have no idea about the merits of your complaint about the way that the sanctions that were enacted. Perhaps another admin who cares more about the climate change articles could review and decide if these sanctions were enacted appropriately. The catch-22 here is that truly uninvolved admins lack the background to make a full assessment of the dispute, and any admin who knows enough about the dispute to make a judgement is likely too involved to do so. Sorry I could not have been more help here, but this is clearly going nowhere from my end, so good luck and lets see what other admins have to say on this. --Jayron32 04:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your timeJPatterson (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

JP needs to slow down. He is waaay out of line in breaking the Climate Change probabtion, and it is far more than just 1RR - that is just the most blatant violation. JP is familiar enough with wiki to wikilawyer, though not very well, but unfamiliar enough not to clearly understand what a revert is (maybe. I'm sure you can see the obvious problem with The edit in question was not a revert... My edit simply removed one...). He isn't blocked, just banned from a couple of articles. If he edits productively elsewhere and drops the lawyering, I'll be happy to support a review of his ban in a week.

But he does need to stop the lawyering. I contacted 2/0 in an entirely neutral manner that didn't even mention JP by name [2]. Describing it as "This cozy exchange", or as "meat-puppetry" is entirely inappropriate.

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If as you imply, any change counts as a revert then I'm guilty as charged. But then so are a large number of active editors on that page. Yet the only ones who seem to get sanctioned are those not actively pushing the tempest in a teapot meme. If article probation supersedes WP:Bold and WP:BRD, it should say so somewhere. If any change, no matter how small and no matter if consensus has been reached is a revert, it should say that somewhere as well. JPatterson (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's hard to recognise that Jpat's description of events above is supposed to describe the same process I was watching. He's lucky only to be banned for such a short period, if it were up to me that would be an indefinite ban from all climate change topics. We just don't need mission posters in this area right now. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Note: JPatterson has initiated a discussion regarding William M. Connolley on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard under the heading William M. Connolley re Climategate article. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpat34721 appears to be forum shopping. I'll ask him to knock it off. --TS 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for this.

• Briefly: the last thing climate articles need right now is people with an axe to grind. Jpat34721 is doing a fairly good job of portraying himself as someone with an axe to grind. Therefore I think the topic ban is reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I should note that it's not actually a topic ban; he is merely banned from a single article and its talk page. In the light of the ongoing problems with this editor, should this now be extended to a general topic ban from climate articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a rather tired and involved editor I've not been paying too much attention to Jpat34721|JPatterson edit warring, and have no complaint about sanctions being imposed. Jpat needs to accept that 1R is a maximum, not an entitlement. However, I would note that Jpat34721|JPatterson has made a number of helpful contributions to the talk page, and on that basis a review of the sanction in a week's time would be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't followed this too closely but I do think the topic ban, though within the reasonable discretion of the community to enact and of an administrator to judge as having consensus, was perhaps a little harsh and hasty. The new article probation is being enforced rather more sternly than the Obama article probation on which it is based. We'll see where that goes. As a process matter, I think that appeals should be made directly on the enforcement page rather than choosing a general-purpose administrator meta-page. If we need more eyes on it, a courtesy notice here, at AN/I, and/or the general sanctions page would be helpful, but not forking the discussion to multiple pages. Even more ambitious, if there is a volunteer clerk in the house it might make sense to develop a system for logging active and closed requests, actions, and appeals. Kind of a miniature, tiny, community-organized version of Arbcom's RfE pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I must say I am surprised by the axe grinding allegations. I dare say I am one of the few editors of that page who can point to edits I've made on both sides of the argument. Again, no one in this entire process has posted a single diff to back up the allegations of one-sided editing. I have argued for balance and have tried numerous approaches to reach consensus. Perhaps I have run afoul of a rule I do not fully understand. I am still trying to figure out when "a change" becomes "a revert" (assuming you don't "undo"). Fine, fools rush in and ignorance is no excuse (although it would be nice if the rules were posted somewhere). But as to the content of the changes themselves, please point to one that shows this egregious axe grinding. For the record, my position re AGW is that I don't know. The uncertainties are too high to have confidence in either position. With respect to this controversy, I don't think it says anything about the science one way or another but does raise legitimate concerns about the process. What I do know is that when I pointed my highschooler to this article after a brief conversation on "Climategate", I was embarrassed at what he found. It is a topic I'm familiar with and I decided to try and help to nudge the article towards NPOV. Since the article as I found it was blatantly in the "tempest in a teapot" camp, moving it toward balance meant run ins with highly partisan editors on the side of the status quo, including some who have commented here. But I think any fair reading of my edits and my talk page participation would lead any impartial observer to conclude that my contribution has been constructive and have in fact improved the articleJPatterson (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning

Hope this si the right forum..

It became clear while pleading my case above for a review of my ban, that I had a fundamental flaw in my understanding of what constitutes a revert. With the help of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise here I've sorted out the source of my confusion. It appears to me that WP:Revert and WP:3RR are in conflict as to what constitutes a revision, (a smaller change qualifies under 3RR than is implied by WP:Revert). The problem is that currently there is no path that leads an editor of an article under probation to the 3RR definition. The warning one sees when one starts to edit an article on probation speaks only of WP:1RR, which ironically enough, provides no definition of a revert and among other things advises users to "See WP:Bold,revert,discuss cycle", which as I come to find out, is bad advice in this context. When issues arose, I used WP:Revert which I found on my own by poking around and later WP:1RR which led me further astray.

I would suggest:

• The warning template on the article edit page have a link to the operative definition of a revert
• the definitions given in WP:3RR and WP:Revert be the same
• WP:1RR contain a link to the above definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpat34721 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• The warning be expanded to include 3RR
• That we clarify the policy w.r.t Probation, WP:Bold, and WP:BRD

This might help to avoid contention in the future. JPatterson (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dontdeletecontent

Does this constitute an attack? Or should we continue to monitor until contributions eventually lead to AIV or AN/I as I suspect they will. Disruption is surely impending in the name of The Truth. SGGH ^ping! 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please inform the user of this thread. Tan | 39 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. SGGH ^ping! 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the page for deletion at MfD. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Has anyone blocked the rather obvious sockpuppet? Guy (Help!) 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, though I did air initial sock suspicions when I removed it from UAA. Looking at Talk:Nazism might reveal some meatpuppetry. SGGH ^ping! 13:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Animated gif bug?

Thread moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Animated_gif_bug?.  Skomorokh  17:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

George Reeves Person/BoxingWear again

The user described here is now continuing his disruptive editing as ChessMasta and IP, see the discussion here. --84.162.249.158 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are anonymous IPs talking on Talk:Bartłomiej Macieja about checkuser results on ChessMasta? Was there even a request for a checkuser? And I see no notification to the accused ChessMasta concerning either checkuser or this AN. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no talk about checkuser results, but only statements on the obviously identical disruptive behaviour. --84.162.176.108 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed the user about this notice. --84.162.176.108 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and a very friendly notice it was [3]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has right to delete vandalism on its talk page, especially when they are personal attacks made on purpose seeking revenge, creating provocative atmosphere, making false statements,he is telling me i will be banned, SEEWOLF is the one who ought to be banned from all wikis as he caused all these problems. The bottom line is, Macieja 6-2 match is proven right, as I was right in my edits, if I get banned, so what, I can easily create other account, it does not bother me at all being banned but what for, for doing what is right?

You can see that Seewolf is user 84, he ALWAYS LOGS ON UNDER DIFFERENT GERMAN IP, he is user from Germany, unfortunately an administrator there, never leaves his real name. Here's what he said on Macieja: "The game is not notable enough among thousands of games played by Macieja. --84.162.212.225 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)" The game is not notable enough among thousands of games played by Macieja. --84.162.212.225 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)" Clearly, this states this individual's english skills are pathetic, more info is available on Macieja's talk page. Because of him that page is indefinitely blocked.

I could have logged on under any IP I chose to, but I did not, when things became bad, seewolf logged on using his many german IP's. Its sad he is administrator there, I have to repeat this few times, because such people are not productive, only cause friction!

Here's what seewolf did on wilhelm steinitz page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Steinitz&diff=337461738&oldid=337440928 he reverted everything, all the info was correct, but where is his prove it's nonsense? He did not even leave any note. He is angry his Macieja edit did not stand ground, so now he is looking for revenge. Administrator Regents Park http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bart%C5%82omiej_Macieja&diff=337386114&oldid=337124629 approved my edit, except moved link to footnote format, i approved it,this is what seewolf did not like. Im requesting administrators to ignore this individual, not to allow him to bother me, he ought not to progress on wikipedia, as he made similar mistakes in the past, such actions do not contribute to wikipedia's growth, here are his other reverts, again never stating why he reverted good edits, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.162.242.211

this clearly shows he is after me, im not going to revert those articles, im happy with macieja decision, that's what it was all about, now he wants to get into more edit wars, if he wants incorrect articles, fine, if you allow him to do so, great, let him write, revert anything!

Here on his talk page: is evidence he reverted things "fake" for many years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seewolf also first paragraph is in german, proving my additional statements!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessMasta (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New sockpuppet investigations clerks needed

Hi folks. We have a need for some new clerks at WP:SPI, the sockpuppet investigations process. At SPI, clerks help the checkusers maintain the page by keeping cases organized, archiving them, tagging confirmed socks, endorsing checkuser requests and occasionally declining them. All final decisions, of course, rest with the checkusers. Both administrators and non-administrators can be trainees and full clerks. For example, Nathan, one of the clerks who has been there the longest, is not an administrator.

A few things to keep in mind if you think you might like to help us keep the sock menace down: (a) we generally don't take trainees with a recent block log or history of disruptive editing, (b) we would prefer trainees who can be regularly active and (c) we often use the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-spi on Freenode, which can be accessed using one of these tools or links, for coordination purposes. Please e-mail myself, Nathan, MuZemike or PeterSymonds if you're interested.

On behalf of the SPI clerk team, NW (Talk) 03:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably would help out, but I have no understanding of IRC and my last experiment ended pretty appallingly... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. I woudn't mind helping, but I have no interest in using IRC. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IRC isn't really a requirement for clerks or patrolling admins (which are separate - patrolling the cases requires confident judgment wrt sockpuppets, but not clerk training), but it makes the training process much easier. Particularly for administrators interested in patrolling (which we also need very much), we can make other arrangements if IRC isn't an option. Nathan ^T 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

McCready topic ban

Resolved

 – No consensus to alter the indef topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Per McCready's own request for a vote, which has been started below. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:ANI and restoring archived material. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Archive search for McCready
• Arbcom punts issue back to community

---

As per instructions, I request that my topic ban be lifted on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Please come to my talkpage to discuss. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [4]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban imposed here [5] and here [6]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to WP:AN? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline lifting the ban, due to the inadequacy of the request: it does not tell us who imposed which ban and for which reason, or why it should be lifted now.  Sandstein  18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot see any mention of User:Mccready (aka Kevin McCready) at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Whatever the restrictions are, or why they were imposed by whoever, they should be evident to other editors without recourse to a major forensic exercise. When restrictions were recently imposed on User:Levineps, a description of the restrictions was created at User:Levineps/terms. If there are restrictions in force on User:Mccready, they should be displayed in the same way, and listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions .. otherwise they are de facto listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [7] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [8] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [9]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [10]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [11] and Virtual Steve [12] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [13]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion should be at [14] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [15]. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light. I was the one inserting well sourced science based material. Yes it's a major forensic exercise to dig all this up and demonstrate it. But the links are all on my page. I have edited in many areas since the ban and my talkpage shows the positive feedback from the community. I propose that I return to normal editing and any sanctions can then be quickly applied if needed. I must say it's refreshing not to face a vindictive and vicious attitude. Thank you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).

This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[16], including with an IP[17][18] (see checkuser results).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[19]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.

sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Middle 8 has retired (1. how sweet that he comes out of retirement to harass me 2. how sweet it is that he ignores my history since the ban with an insulting put down 3. if appropriate I'm happy to provide evidence off wiki to any admin who requests it about who this person is, his previous wiki actions and various incarnations on wiki 3. to provide this evidence on wiki would "out" him as he has requested anonymity), may I take it that there is an assumption of good faith from other editors that I will resume full editing and be sanctioned if needed and that at this stage it ill serves the community to dig up a very disputed and convoluted history and prolong the drama? Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If Middle 8 is being disruptive/dishonest with new accounts (RTV does not allow disruptive socking), then on-wiki evidence can be provided. You're right, off-wiki is off-wiki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[20] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

• FloNight [21] [22]
• MastCell [23]
• David Ruben [24]
• FeloniousMonk [25]
• 2over0 (see edit summary: [26])
• Jim62sch [27]
• Orangemarlin (see edit summary: [28])
• Friday [29]
• Jefffire [30]
• Arthur Rubin [31]

None of the above editors are fringe-promoters and indeed many are actively devoted to removing fringecruft. (So much for "major forensic exercises". The editors who urge leniency are frequently those who know Mccready's history the least.)

As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[32], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all wikignoming, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)

Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A word of support for Middle 8. He is not using a sock, and I too have supported the topic ban of McCready, even though I'm not listed above. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirm that long ago before the topic ban I found Mccready difficult to work with - as I recall (caution: unverified personal recollection) he was adding well-sourced material but skewing the article and not collaborating well with other editors at the talkpage. I have not reviewed Mccready's recent edits, but I can confirm that Middle 8 knows what they are talking about. As a side note, last I checked Acupuncture was in dire need of a good copyeditor. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Summary

I thought I recognized McCready's name, so I did a bit of digging. The original topic ban was put in place here. He asked for a review here. He asked for a review on his talk page, but the admin was unable to complete it due to personal reasons. He then went to ANI to complain about that discussion, which resulted in a block. Another ANI discussion about the topic ban arose when McCready posted on a ban-related page. I think that brings us up to date. Note that I am not taking sides in this dispute, just trying to gather some discussions so people can see the history of this debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful summary, thanks. FYI, Scientizzle compiled something similar on his (archived) talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban still unresolved; he is editing in banned area again

The bot for this page archived [33] the most recent discussion on the indef topic ban of Mccready (talk · contribs · block user) before any consensus was reached on whether or not to lift it. See discussion archive here. The ban is on "all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed" [34]. Mccready has now edited Talk:Acupressure [35] in clear violation of the ban. The community owes him clarification: should we let the ban stand (and come back for review after X period of time a/o when Y conditions are met), lift it with the condition that it can be re-imposed if needed, or something else. User has been notified [36]. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the last time this was discussed was in December 2009 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Brilliant,_fabulous). It seems to me that McCready is still obsessive about pseudoscience topics and I am not comfortable with lifting the topic ban as it's close to impossible to keep a lid on those topics already. I've modified my opinion from above because in looking through the archives I find a fair bit of evidence of previous ban evasion and other nonsense (including recently editing in this area without the ban being lifted); that is not a good sign. This may be a case of "give a dog a bad name" but I really do think that these articles are better off without McCready's input. I don't think it's a problem necessarily of whether he can make properly neutral edits to this content, it's what happens when anyone disputes his edits that causes the problem. I think the WP:TIGERS are best kept in their cages on this one.

The persuasive factor here is that during the period of the ban McCready has been virtually inactive. The topic ban has been, in effect, a siteban since he appears to have virtually no interest in any other topics. He's not established any kind of reputation for reasonable interaction with others because he's not spent any time learning how to do that in areas where he is less emotionally vested. If he'd spent the last year quietly working away on some unrelated subjects and shown ability to work productively with people of different opinions then it might be different, but what we actually see is a period return to ask for the topic ban to be lifted, request denied, and he goes away for another wikibreak. In other words, he only has one area of interest, and he's shown over a long period of time that he causes serious problems whenever he edits in that area of interest. With no problem-free track record to go on, I can't in good conscience recommend lifting this ban. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrably false Guy and if you'd spend time researching rather than smearing you could find the truth. Your statement is so full of innuendo, contradictions and pure irrelavancies that I don't need to point them out. But just for the record my My recent edits include (and will you try to tell me they are not a contribution???)

Richard Dawkins (8)

Ubiquitin (8)

Osteochondritis dissecans (7)

Talk:Water fluoridation (7)

Fluoroquinolone toxicity (7)

Missy Higgins (6)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (5)

Fiat money (5)

PubMed (5)

Lee Myung-bak (5)

Karl Kruszelnicki (5)

User talk:Collectonian (5)

Silicosis (4)

Antireligion 4)

Meningitis (4)

New article creation (perhaps you can do a search to see how many I have done???

There are also plenty of examples of my collegiate editing on my talkpage. Will you please do me the courtesy of reading them. I have tried assiduously from the time of the ban to avoid wikidrama and now it is old enemies who want to create it. My recent record shows I just want to get on editing.

Now will you try to address the question. Even supposing the ban was validly placed (and that is disputed) it is false to argue that normal sanctions cannot be applied if I step out of line. You will also notice, will you not, that the POV pusher who has come out of retirement again and who is behind this from the start, has failed once again to come up with the goods on acupressure. He objects to scientific material being placed in areas where he edits (I can give a list of these off wiki because we wouldn't want to identify him would we?) Finally, will you investigate canvassing by him? A simple yes or no will suffice. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And you think that your reputation for short temper and personal attacks is going to be helped by that outburst, do you? I think you may be wrong about that. The edit count above is tiny, and as I said for most of this period you have been entirely inactive. Yes, I am sure you can be civil with people who agree with you but disagreement is something you're plainly unable to handle gracefully, and those articles are a constant source of disagreement. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guy on this. My run-ins with McCready were from a few years ago, and I'd normally be reluctant to base anything on them after all this time, but if exactly the same problems are continuing in the same area, with no editing in other areas for the sake of comparison, it signals a serious problem. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think we probably both agree with his POV (and I certainly have a problem with some recent edits by Middle8 whose contributions I am now starting to review) but I would be much happier if there were a history of collegiate work on some other subject. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Review to your heart's content, Guy. It doesn't matter, because I don't plan on editing stuff here other than films and music; the idea that an encyclopedia can work without expert review (let alone that the final say belongs to a guy who happened to make some bucks during the dot-com boom and is completely unqualified for the task) would be pathetic if it weren't so hilarious. For most topics, WP is a drama-fest and time-sink, and by its own admission, an unreliable source. And no, I haven't canvassed. I don't even know most of the people who have commented here or at WP:ARB, except for a few encounters with Guy and a friendly relationship on- and off-wiki with Brangifer, with whom I haven't been in touch for ages. He found this discussion all by himself, believe it or not. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but this has got to be the fourth time you've said that under your various accounts, right? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Middle 8, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. Or did you want someone to try to persuade you to stay? You might have a long wait. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He said "except for film and music". Doesn't seem like Meatball:Goodbye to me. Nathan ^T 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year, guys. Thanks for the collegiality. Always a pleasure. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

M8, aren't you the editor with the undisclosed COI and a history of conflict with McCready with your previous account(s)? It's kind of unseemly for you to be lobbying this aggressively. Skinwalker (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no COI here, undisclosed or otherwise. (Mccready might have one; I'm not sure; scroll down to the bit about $50,000.) Please read the Q&A on my user page. As for conflict with Mccready, anyone who substantially disagrees with him winds up in the path of an angry mastodon: that's the whole point of this ongoing discussion. Sorry if commenting on something I actually know about (with evidence 'n stuff) is "COI" or "unseemly"; I realize that expertise is not the Wikipedia way. ;-) --Middle 8 (talk)

Your COI is a matter of record under your previous account. Don't push it. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, dude. Either you've got me confused with someone else, or you're confusing some editor's accusation with an actual finding (as I recall, there was one accusation at ANI, which was quickly dismissed as being bullshit). Re-read WP:COI. Members of X profession may edit articles on X topic as long as they're not POV-pushing, and no admin ever found that I was. However, if you're right about there being a "matter of record", I'm sure you can email me the diff(s) off-wiki, right? And if you can't, I'll take your silence as an admission that you're wrong (which you are). And lay off the uncivil bullying act, tough guy -- it sets a bad example for other editors (cough, cough). --Middle 8 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

11 users have now commented. Only Middle8 appears to have read the full history and users can make their own judgment on his views and motive for doing so. One user has declined because links weren't provided. Since the links were on my talkpage and I requested people to look at them, and indeed they have been provided above by other users, users can again make their own judgment. Others have alluded to the possibility that the ban doesn't exist. Others have commented on their past views but have not reviewed my edits since the ban. One user has commented at greater length on my edits since the ban but has not responded to my further questions. In summary there is no consensus to support Middle8's views. So, unless others want to support Middle8's vendetta (and please address the original question with a more purposeful focus if you do), I intend to resume normal editing. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is false - I also read the full history and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The ban exists, this is not in doubt. I have said that I would not support lifting of the ban. Others agree, and this does not seem to be restricted to those who are on the opposite side from you in respect of fringe and pseudoscience content. ArbCom has said it will leave the ban status to the community, so you need to persuade people. The best way of doing that would be a sustained period of unproblematic editing on other topics. Your edit history shows that when you are not editing the articles in question you are largely inactive, so it is natural that some of us will be sceptical about lifting the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously I disagree Guy on many points. Your opinion that my edits since the "ban" do not amount to much is not shared by all the people who have commented on my talkpage. And please spare me the bullying and threats. I'm at one with Middle8 on this score.

Here are the numbers:

1. Guy who is adamant that the "ban" stays until Guy judges I have done enough editing

2. Even Middle8 is not as hard line as Guy

3.. Sandstein – withdrew from discussion on grounds I didn’t provide links (since it’s all on my talkpage which I’ve referred to multiple times … has obviously not made himself aware of the issue

4. Elen of the Roads – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

5. RUL3R – has not supported Middle8 and Guy,

6. SlimVirgin – an if statement does not support Middle8 and Guy

7. BrownHairedGirl - – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

8. Phoe - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

9. BWilkins - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

10. Brangifer says supported in past when he used a different wikiname, doesn’t comment on now - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

11. The Hand That Feeds - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

12. 2over0 - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

13. Hipocrite - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

14. Skinwalker - - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

Am I missing something Guy or is the "community" represented here by 12 people and myself versus you and Middle8 not as concerned as you are with this vendetta? I will now resume normal editing. You have had a chance to be constructive but you are even more stubborn than Middle8 and on opinion which is not shared by others, you have not responded to my questions. You do not represent the community on this issue.Kevin McCready (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are showing, once again, your combative nature, excessive tendency to personalise and factionalise disputes, and fierce determination to edit these articles. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. Mccready, you will not go back to the topics you are banned from, otherwise I will block you. Understood? The community ban is still in place until such time as it is formally revoked. There is no consensus for doing so here and indeed a plethora of solid arguments have been put forward for keeping it in place. Moreschi (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Kevin, that's a pretty deceptive summary. The point is that we are all against you editing in the area of your topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Now blocked for 100 hours for ignoring the topic ban by editing at chiropractic education. Moreschi (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Predictable, I guess. I hold by my original thought that what we need to see is evidence of the ability to engage in civil debate with people he disagrees with. As I read it, the main problem was that he kept flying off the handle every time someone disagreed with him. I can see why, fringe-pushers are incredibly vexatious and persistent, but losing your temper has never fixed that yet and is unlikely to start any time soon. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose broader indefinite topic ban or siteban

First off, for anyone who hasn't seen it, I did an in-depth evaluation of the topic ban approximately a year ago (Jan. 2009). Mccready wanted a review of the "indefinite topic ban (banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed) with a general probation on pseudoscience of one full year" that I enacted, following ANI discussions, 01:00, May 7, 2008. (This requested review was preceded by a December 2008 ANI discussion and December 2008 AN topic ban review, both which were only semi-productive but certainly provided indication of any support to reduce or eliminate any of Mccready's editing restrictions.) My Jan. 2009 review concluded:

The recent community consensus is clear: Mccready's topic ban is valid and should stand.

This was evidently unsatisfactory, and further discussion turned south as Mccready became more argumentative.

A month later (Feb.-Mar. 2009), admin User:VirtualSteve came to effectively the same conclusions in a further review initiated by Mccready. Then, Mccready initiated a review in March 2009 on ANI, that supported all the previous reviews. After editing sparsely over the next several months, Mccready returned to editing on indefinitely topic banned pages in October 2009. This set off a subsequent round of review that resulted in reiteration fo the status quo by admin Kevin/Rdm2376, followed by dubious & combative WP:AN posts, burned bridges and block drama.

All of these ban reviews have had common responses from Mccready indicating he has not yet and likely never will consider the opinions upholding any topic ban to be of merit (indeed, he apparently believes this "wasn't a 'community ban'"). Comments by Mccready directed at admins that have upheld editing restrictions often fall along the lines of "[a particular admin has shown a] refusal to engage in a logical discussion" presumably because s/he hasn't come to the conclusions desired by Mccready [37]. This has been a pattern of repeated forum shopping and tedious wikilawyering, with multiple instances of aggressive and uncooperative behavior spanning a couple years.

Moreschi's block is perfectly appropriate given that recent edits clearly violated the still-in-effect topic ban; a warning, seen or missed as the case may be, was a courtesy not a requirement in this case. At this point, I would recommend a full indefinite pseudoscience topic ban, broadly construed, at least; perhaps up to a full siteban based on a pattern of behavior that indicates an unwillingness to work within community standards.

Note: I believe Mccready should maintain the ability to respond to any comments in this discussion on his talk page while blocked (assuming that privelage is not reasonably revoked for disruption). Furthermore, I ask that Middle 8 voluntarily disengage from any further participation in this topic due to the long, contentious relationship between these two accounts. — Scientizzle 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, will do. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know, I do think that what he needs is to gain some experience in articles where he feels less strongly, just getting along with folks with everyday causal disagreements. I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I could be wrong, too. From what I've seen, I think it's doubtful that Mccready will accept anything less than a full elimination of all editing restrictions. To be honest, I was leaning towards 'a clean slate' approach until Mccready started with the deceptive "evaluations" of various opinions (that list of 14 above), consistent with prior patterns of behavior, and then the brash topic-banned editing and the resulting unblock request BS...the patterns of behavior that contributed to the topic ban have not demonstrably changed it seems. — Scientizzle 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "full indefinite pseudoscience topic ban, broadly construed". It's sad to see when certain hot-headed people's emotions get the best of them, and they do things which they might regret later. (Can happen to the best of us, if we hold to some positions very stronlgy.) Unfortunate, yes, and not very helpful. But I am not convinced that an indefinite topic ban is called-for in this case. Could be actually counterproductive. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef pseudoscience topic ban. I haven't seen enough evidence that such a ban will prevent problems in the pseudoscience area. However, I also oppose lifting of his current restrictions. Perhaps if s/he can show that s/he can contribute to wikipedia in a positive manner, without being a tendentious editor, with more than just a few edits here and there, then the current restrictions could be lifted. DigitalC (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note

At present it seems unlikely this thread will produce a consensus either to lift Mccready's topic ban or to expand it to more topics. To clarify the ban's current status, I have made a new entry at WP:RESTRICT, pointing to the original discussion in May, 2008 that was closed by Scientizzle. To be sure that I correctly stated the ban originally imposed, I discussed the matter with Scientizzle at User talk:Scientizzle#WP:AN discussion of a topic ban for an editor. If the present AN thread reaches a new conclusion that is different, then the entry in WP:RESTRICT can be updated. Since the ban was indefinite, it will continue in effect unless modified here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the reactions from the editor above, I think that what you drafted looks fine:

User	Type	Sanction (quoted verbatim)	Special Enforcement Details	Expiration Date
Mccready	Topic ban	Mccready is indefinitely banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed.	Community sanction imposed at this discussion, which occurred on 7 May, 2008	Indefinite

Did you want to do the honours Ed? Once this is done we can mark this thread as closed and continue on as normal. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:HandThatFeeds has now marked the whole Mccready thread as resolved. I have made an entry at WP:RESTRICT as shown above to document the old restriction, which remains in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Vote his fate here

Per McCready's expressed wish here, (removed here), I am starting the procedure which McCready very clearly wished and as he suggested, using his own words.

Basically one should vote "support" for one or the other. A "support" in one section automatically counts as a vote against the other, so negative votes are unnecessary and would only be confusing. A vote to support him staying here should include what conditions he should edit under, for example a topic ban, other condition(s), or no conditions at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

McCready should go

• Support a site ban. He has good abilities as an editor (and as a skeptic of alternative medicine and chiroquackery I actually share his POV), but his attitude is so bad and contentious that he doesn't belong here. His parting rant gives good evidence of that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• As an uninvolved editor in any of this conflict, I don't see this vote as being beneficial to anyone. He can still contribute in other areas outside of his topic ban, should he choose to do so once his block expires. He has a month to consider whether or not he wants to pursue the issue of what he feels is an invalid topic ban or move on to other subjects. On the other hand, if a majority of the votes are for him to stay, but not all mention any specific details as to editing restrictions, he may see that as a way to invalidate the topic ban he has been vehemently arguing against. Let the block expire and give him the option to contribute in other areas, and let his actions after the block be a factor in his participation, not a vote he requested when he was in a rather agitated state. HAZardousMATT^toxic 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hidden blocks

I'm increasingly coming across user and IP blocks which aren't recorded around here, and I'm wondering where exactly I have to go to find out about blocks such as 70.38.37.250. This isn't a bug, right? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No bug I can see. Clicking on the link shows me a block from December and then clicking the block log indicates it is the only one. Are you aware of other blocks? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is: when I go to their contribs it says the user is currently blocked, yet the block was enacted on 21 December for two weeks: so it should have expired by 4 January. Woody (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not just me. Anyway it seems to have gone now, so it looks like it was a 10-day cache lag, showing the IP was blocked when perhaps it wasn't. Now I'm going to block the IP again, and perhaps some of the range, as an open proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Must be a cache issue as it has gone for me as well. I presume that the IP was unblocked but there is no way of telling that until it happens again. If there haven't been any complaints from IPs, I presume it is just lag. Perhaps a post to VPT? Woody (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Page creation blocked

I attempted to create the page titled List of current United States Senators by Class as a redirect to the table that I just created with that data at Classes_of_United_States_Senators#List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_Class, but it was blocked, saying that I should post here.

Thank you, Sg647112c (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, must have been caught in the title blacklist for some reason. Woody (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Resolved

 – community topic ban enacted by overwhelming consensus; subject of sanction can appeal to Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned for one year from Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The topic ban has now expired and he is back advocating precisely the same mix of WP:FRINGE and WP:OR as caused the original arbitration case. The idea of topic bans, as I understand it, is to help people move on from a dispute and become more adept at Wikipedia collaboration in areas that are less of a hot button for them. Pcarbonn's editing during the topic ban has been restricted to continuing to argue his case at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. He made not one mainspace edit during the one year topic ban, and not one edit to any article talk page.

From the RFAR:

Pcarbonn edits articles with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy. [38] [39], [40] Additionally, Pcarbonn has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect include assumptions of bad faith [41], and edit warring. [42] [43]. For more complete evidence see [44], [45], [46].

During the arbitration case it became clear that he had formed off-wiki ties with Jed Rothwell, another cold fusion advocate who is topic banned. He also collaborated with Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who it appears proxied for him and Jed Rothwell as noted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley. He has also been active in promoting the fringe theory of cold fusion off-wiki, in collboartion with Rothwell. This led to Abd, in turn, being topic-banned from cold fusion.

See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Pcarbonn admonished:

Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

— Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Pcarbonn admonished

There is no evidence of Pcarbonn's having "directed his efforts elsewhere". As far as I am concerned, this makes him a single purpose or agenda account. His contributions to talk since the ban expired exhibit precisely the same stonewalling, precisely the same advocacy of fringe POV based on novel interpretation of sources. I think uninvolved admins should watch the talk page of cold fusion, and Pcarbonn's contributions, with a view to enacting a further topic ban should this become necessary in order to protect Wikipedia from this long-term campaign by fringe advocates. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and tend to support a community topic ban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support siteban or topic ban. Either/or, it seems six of one, yadayada. Auntie E. 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As per Aunt Entropy, with perhaps a slight preference for a siteban. Moreschi (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think this should be relatively uncontroversial; this editor's record over a prolonged period of time suggests to me an interest in using Wikipedia to promote a personal agenda in a way that contravenes this site's content and behavioral policies. There isn't any evidence of interest in contributing to or building the encyclopedia outside of this narrow agenda. This site doesn't seem to be a good fit for what this editor wants to accomplish, and I think it's time everyone moves on. I don't see any functional difference between a topic-ban and site-ban, given that the editor appears to have no interest in contributing to topics beyond cold fusion. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Since no one has put it into words, lets say that the ban should read:
  • Pcarbonn's former topic ban is returned under the same terms as before, and extended indefinately, with no automatic expiration set.
• That ought to solve the problem. Comments? Supports? Opposes? --Jayron32 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Has it been a year already? Nothing has changed at all. Therefore, extend the restriction to indefinite. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support Since this will indicate whether the editor is interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, or is a single purpose account for advocating a pov I would prefer to add in a "broadly construed" terminology to avoid the problem noted by Guy in his editing while previously restricted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Someone might want to mention this discussion to Pcarbonn, as that hasn't been done yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support extention to indefinite - relatively uncontrovertial imo, for exactly the reasons that it was imposed in the first place. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef. Pcap ping 01:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also support indef topic ban. We don't need advocacy SPAs on whatever topic.  Sandstein  18:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support long-overdue site or topic ban. Skinwalker (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, per Jehochman, Ale_jrb & Sandstein. Maybe I'm getting cranky in my old age (or because I am spending a lot of my waking hours looking after a 2 year-old), but when someone gets a one-year topic ban & fails to change for the better afterwards then nothing will convince her/him to play nice with the rest of Wikipedia. Let the user find another outlet for her/his energies or advocacy. -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support outright indefinite topic ban, effective immediately. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban - the editor refuses to drop the stick, apparently, so we have to take the stick away somehow. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the count as 15 to nothing. Is that good enough for a consensus to indef? If yea, can a non-involved admin do the honors? Auntie E. (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me just say that most of the support come from involved editors, and I invite the non-involded admin to carefully review the situation, and in particular my edits since Dec 17, before taking action. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A good deal of it comes from uninvolved people and I've seen nobody support your return to editing that article. Sanctions which fail to affect the behaviour of the sanctioned editor have a tendency to be extended, that seems to be what people above are saying. Unsurprisingly I agree. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Echoing Guy. Of the accounts currently involved in the discussion on Talk:Cold fusion, only Enric Naval has posted both here & there; of the parties involved in the RfAr case, only Jehochman was involved both here & there. I'd also like to point out that when Pcarbonn was topic-banned from this article, she/he practically stopped contributing to Wikipedia (she/he made some edits to her/his monobook.js file), & as Guy pointed out above returned to the Cold fusion article -- without ever venturing into another subject area. in other words, I don't see any evidence that this editor has tried to figure out how to work within the rules of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

He says "I find this decision unjust and unfounded, and a harbinger of great danger for Wikipedia, its editors, and its readers." And note his userpage where he listed a number of "suppressed statements" and is crossing them off as he weasels them into the article. Chief among these is the pretence that the DoE 2004 report was much more ambivalent than it actually was, elevating comments from the body of the report above the headline conclusions, which were unchanged from the previous report and firmly against cold fusion. So, no, he has learned precisely nothing, in fact repudiates the outcome of the arbitration case, and is still on precisely the same mission. But he was not entirely absent during the topic ban - he went to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science to argue his case again. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also support indef topic ban, from pseudo-science topics broadly construed including all related meta-discussions, or siteban if that isn't practical. Sustained single-minded agenda editing should lead to blocks far more often and far more quickly than it does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• I oppose the topic ban. The evidence isn't convincing enough.  Dr. Loosmark  12:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban. I concur with Future Perfect on all points. I am uninvolved, BTW. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support the topic ban. These relentless pseudoscience crusades wear down the community. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per my comments in response to GoRight. The user seems to be uninterested in doing anything except advocate on the subject for which he was topic banned. --TS 20:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unless and until a substantive case is presented based on recent evidence. Essentially all of JzG's allegations above have been shown to be false on their face below. I will be more that happy to address any specific evidence that JzG wishes to being up but without some sort of a recent case this is just dredging up the past for no good reason. --GoRight (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  For myself, I responded with my reasoning based on recent evidence. It can now be found on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GoRight on Pcarbonn. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Consensus seems clear, could an uninvolved admin please review and enact. I suggest that any appeal be to the arbitration committee, and that this be logged as an extension under the original arbitration case for transparency. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Enacted, by notifying Pcarbonn. (I don't think my previous "support" opinion bars me from doing this, does it?) I think there is also a consensus that the ban should be somewhat broader than just "Cold fusion" alone, to cover disruption like that in the "Fringe science" Arbcom case, so I'm taking the freedom of proposing the following wording: "all contributions related to "fringe science" topics, including but not limited to Cold Fusion and related pages, their talk pages, as well as related meta-discussions". Is that okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not ok, just because you don't like his POV it doesn't mean he should be slapped with a wide topic ban.  Dr. Loosmark  12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The is a WP:SNOW close. There is no doubt that the community supports this remedy. It doesn't matter who closes. If you don't like the result and cannot accept it, please file an appeal. Do not needlessly lengthen this thread by repeating the same arguments multiple times. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This has already been to arbitration once, to persuade any meaningful number of people that a ban is not warranted you will need to show that Pcarbonn accepts the outcome of the arbitration and has changed his behaviour accordingly. Since he has repeatedly said that he does not accept the outcome, and his behaviour on return is, to my eyes anyway, indistinguishable, this might be a little difficult, but you're very welcome to try. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Naughty: [47]. Soliciting for editors to proxy for him. Not good. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have topic-banned Dual Use too, for 2 months as a start. Whether or not he was going to actually proxy for Pcarbonn or whether or not he already was doing so, his editing seemed virtually indistinguishable from that of P anyway. Same pattern, same disruption. This from a self-described alternate account that won't reveal his prior involvement is just too fishy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd not spotted that - that looks like one of the proscribed uses of alternate accounts to me. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Any special advice on whether (or how) to strikeout or revert recent contribs by these banned users? LeadSongDog come howl 20:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You can just move any finished threads to the archive, or use {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, otherwise ignore and move on. They are not unpersons. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I strikeout only the edits of socks, specially the socks of fully-banned users, and specially if it's the nth time that they are socking in the same article. I usually leave alone the comments of topic-banned editors, I just leave a dry neutral note mentioning that they were topic-banned and a link to the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what was he actually banned for, other than advocating an opinion? I would like to see evidence of actual disruption since the previous topic ban ended. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Pcarbonn. --TS 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He was banned for precisely that: advocating an opinion. This project isn't for advocating opinions. Persistently advocating opinions is ipso facto bannable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He was also banned for precisely one year. That time is now up. If a NEW BAN is to be imposed it must be for recent activity that rise to the level of the ban being imposed. I have seen no such evidence presented here. --GoRight (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a punishment. Since Pcarbonn hasn't used the period of his ban wisely, and is still abusing Wikipedia for the purpose of advocacy, the consensus is that the ban can be made permanent, for the sake of Wikipedia's coverage of fringe science. --TS 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bald assertions do not evidence make. Put some actual evidence on this page so that it might be properly examined. Until then your claims remain unfounded. If you wish to ban someone you should be expected to actually make a case for it. --GoRight (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The case has been made, in a fashion that's convinced virtually all of the commenters (who include a substantial number of previously uninvolved individuals, I might add). Pcarbonn was determined to be promoting an agenda at variance with this site's policies and standards. He was given a lengthy topic ban in the hopes that he would a) branch out from his narrow agenda, or b) moderate his approach to advancing that agenda. He has evidently done neither. It thus makes sense to formalize an indefinite topic ban. The objections here amount to demands for an ever-increasing quantity of shrubberies. I think you're letting your zeal for legalistic argumentation, which has been remarked upon previously once or twice, get the better of common sense here. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, not so fast if you please

Extensive essay and responses moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GoRight on Pcarbonn

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it appropriate by well established community standards for someone who has participated in the banning discussion to then assert the issuance of the ban and close the discussion? --GoRight (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Note also that I have replied to the recent evidence provided by Ale_Jrb^talk on the subpage created by TS. --GoRight (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The ban is valid. I can step in as the closer instead, if you'd like. The alternative is a community siteban or discretionary siteban for inappropriate use of Wikipedia. --Tznkai (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the participation. If you want, as a completely uninvolved administrator (I haven't participated at all) I'll personally endorse the closure that was made. Better? -- Atama頭 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. Thanks for your help. I reserve the right to revisit this issue at a later time after additional evidence can be gathered. --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You will need to address the reason for the extended ban, which is Pcarbonn's refusal to accept the outcome of the previous arbitration case, his lack of any significant activity in any other area, his failure to demonstrate an ability to accept when consensus goes against him, his proxying for a banned user and his obduracy. That's necessary because we are not going to have arbitration round 2. We had a lengthy arbitration case which found problems with Pcarbonn's behaviour, his response has been consistently to deny that there is any problem with his behaviour. The arbitrators get the last word on that. The easiest way for Pcarbonn to get the ban lifted is to put in a few months' solid work on other topics, work productively with some people with whom he disagrees, and get rid of all the missioncruft on his user page. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm understanding this: It sounds to me like you are saying that Pcarbonn is being banned indefinitely because he felt that he had been unfairly treated. I don't see that as just cause for sanction, to put it mildly. Kevin Baas^talk 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

One more issue

I have asked User:Pcarbonn to stop maintaining an attack page that he calls a timeline of the cold fusion dispute wherein he maligns myself and other Wikipedians with a rather biased history of cold fusion that dates from years in the past. I have reason to believe that with this community ban, Pcarbonn may not be checking in at Wikipedia and so may not respond quickly to this request. In the interest of moving things along, can I ask for some administrative attention to this matter? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at his talk page. My view is that since he is no longer allowed to comment on this whole topic area, he should not continue to use his userpage for commenting on it either. I've asked him to remove the content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand how Pcarbonn was banned and ScienceApologist was not. That seems totally like a double-standard to me. It baffled me when it happened and I still haven't been able to discover a rational explanation for it. Kevin Baas^talk 16:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Having said that I would've voted oppose on this vote if for no other reasons than to try to re-balance the scales of justice (since SA seems to have some kind of diplomatic immunity or something), but alas, it seems like the voting was closed in haste. Kevin Baas^talk 16:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you carrying grudges? SA hasn't edited Cold Fusion since March 2009. Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Grudge? It's called a grievance. And I will have it for as long as it goes unresolved. That's how grievances work. I know he hasn't edited it but that doesn't remedy the problem. The problem (and my greivance) isn't SA editing or not editing the problem/greviance is the double standard. Nothing has been done to fix it or remedy it in appearance. It's still there. Ergo I still have a problem with it. I ALWAYS will have a problem with double standards and have no intention of even trying to not have a problem with them. So you see there are only two ways to end my grievance: I die, or the double-standard does. Now if SA isn't editing the cold fusion page, what's the harm in giving him the same ban that was given to pcarbonn? Then the double-standard goes away, and along with it my grievance. Kevin Baas^talk 17:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? He was blocked for 3 months. He was topic banned for what, an additional 6.5 total moths? How much blood do you need? We don't ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a year. Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Point goes to KB. --GoRight (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a competition. Please at least try to adhere to your promises? Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No promise has been broken here. Carry on. --GoRight (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question, Hipocrite, should be obvious, by the definition of "double standard". (in the following i don't mean "you" exactly, i'm using "you" to refer to your "we".) As much "blood" as you have spilled of Pcarbonn's - enough to eliminate the double standard. Duh. (More actually, since SA's actions were more egregiuos than Pcarbonn's.) How much blood of Pcarbonn's have you spilled? how long have you blocked him, topic banned him, etc.? How much blood do you need? As regards "we don't ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a year.": actually, that's exactly what you just did. Kevin Baas^talk 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pcarbonn edited the talk page of Cold Fusion as recently as 11 January 2010, and the article itself as recently as 7 January 2010. We do ban people from articles they haven't touched in almost a day. There's no double standard here. During his various restrictions, SA was productive (at least one article totally rewritten and massively improved, for example). During his restriction, Pcarbonn was absent. On the ending of his restriction, SA's behavior hardly changed at all. On the ending of his restriction (actually, a few days before as an anonymous IP address), Pcarbonn dramatically changed his behavior - going from totally absent to pushing his fringy PoV on Cold Fusion. Certainly, you see the difference. Pcarbonn was told "You aren't helpful on Cold Fusion. Go do something else on Wikipedia for a year." He chose to do nothing. He learned nothing. SA was told "You aren't helpful on Fringe Science articles. Go do something else on Wikipedia for nine months." He did something else, and returned a better editor. Apples and oranges. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, that's a non-sequitor. Secondly, you don't really expect me to believe that you are indefinitely topic banning Pcarbonn for THIS, do you?!?!? Kevin Baas^talk 19:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please clear autoblock for user Jpat34721

Resolved

 – Autoblocks cleared. –xeno^talk 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This user's block should have expired and he is asking that someone look into clearing the autoblock that is still preventing him from editing. --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See [48]. --GoRight (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Teddy Pendergrass

Death rumors on Teddy Pendergrass are circulating online at the moment. I can't find a RS and have semi-protected the page for an hour while things shake out. Dppowell (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And almost immediately after I finished that edit, a RS appeared. Dppowell (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may add a second from The AP and NPR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, here's one from the NYT: [49] RIP Teddy. —DoRD (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mjfan98

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Page deleted, problem solved. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin speedy close this, please? It hasn't been transcluded yet, but is unlikely to pass since the editor only has 34 edits to date. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's not transcluded, it's not open. If it's not open, it can't be closed. See Wikipedia talk:Rfa#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ToxicWasteGrounds for a similar one. –xeno^talk 21:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not transcluded, hence not an RfA. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You may want to delete it as a test page. --Tone 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have placed a G2 speedy on it. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

André Devecserii and Kubaneger, (related problems).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Kubaneger indefed for vandal-only and username violation. André Devecserii has removed location and age from userpage, and been told of dangers of using his own name. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was doing some normal vandal patrol when I came across Kubaneger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As I was doing some reverts and warnings I came across this user page that seems to have been vandalized [50], (for this user André Devecserii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).
The way I see it, there is a couple of problems:

1. André Devecserii should have his personal info removed altogether.
2. Kubaneger seems to only vandalize and maybe should be blocked, looking at the contributions of that user, I doubt he was actually trying to help André Devecserii.
3. The talk page of that user make is somewhat difficult to use.
4. Not sure if the template created by that user, (Template:User_en-BN) can be kept so I nominated for deletion on the Templates for discussion project, (I am aware that there are many more colourful templates/user boxes, but based on the user edits I can only guess that the intention was to be disruptive).

Thanks FFMG (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Kubaneger" is German for "Cuba nigger". This vandalism-only account claims to be a native speaker of Xhosa and Bullshit and has been active on Cuba. How about a username-based indef block? Hans Adler 14:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will list that account there, but I think something should also be done about André Devecserii as well, he is giving a fair amount of personal info, (I know I could do a requests for oversight, but I am not 100% sure if that falls under the oversight category). FFMG (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Kubaneger indef blocked for username violation and vandalism-only account. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a admin, but I'm going to leave André Devecserii a message suggesting he removes his personal infomation without delay. I'm also going to suggest he visits username changes and change his username from his real life name. Oversight may also be in order. Nothing major comes up when I type his name into Google, so theres only just the name, school, age to deal with. I'd also agree with FFMG, and suggest oversight, for the infomation here. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Posted. Basically I told him what concerns we have, and how to recify them. I've also told him I will assist him with oversight when he is ready. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He's removed the school and age. Still hasn't contacted me about Oversighting it, but I told him I am not going to make him do stuff he doesn't want to do. Seeing as Kubanger is blocked, and Andre has removed most of the infomation, I'm going to mark this as resolved. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2010

(UTC)

I'll say too that I'm watching his userspace, and I'll just keep an eye to see if he does remove his name and ensure he does not readd the infomation. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2010 Haiti earthquake

This is not really WP:AN topic but since this page has lots of readership from experienced users, it will be a good place to put it. At the earthquake's article, there's been some discussion about what to do with links to charity organizations. Does anyone remember what is a standard practice in such cases - what did we do when there was a tsunami in 2004 and earthquakes in China and Kashmir? --Tone 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also interested in finding out what the standard practice is, in regards to publishing a list of charitable organizations. Many people would like to help via donations, but don't know where and how to go about it. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a great deal of discussion about this following the Southeast Asia tsunami, but I have no idea where that discussion is. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It probably got swamped and destroyed by a tidal-wave... ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at TFD

There is a bit of a backlog at WP:TFD. I am more than happy to help up with any clean-up issues if someone can help close a few. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New essay

Cabal approved

I've noticed more and more people who think that appealing to Jimmy will get them what they desire. To counter this, I've just created the essay Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. I'm thinking that for completeness it needs a "Related articles" section, but not sure what would be best to add to this. Any suggestions? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. Needs a shortcut - some reference to Godwin's law would be nice. Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:YOULOSE. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest, WP:PRETTYPLEASEJIMBO, but it's not really a "short"cut. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• How 'bout UFAIL@WP? GJC 00:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is this like Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem? Guy (Help!) 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  No. "Argumentum ad Jimbonem (properly argumentum Jimbini or argumentum Jimboni) is the logical fallacy that "what Jimbo said" is The Truth™." Appeals to Jimbo is about making an attempt to do an end run around consensus by posting your case to Jimmy's talk page. These are different things :-) - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I thought that the usual purpose of an Appeal to Jimbo was to establish a foundation for subsequent Argumentum ad Jimbonem (however conjugated). While all but the least experienced editors know by now that Jimbo very rarely directly intervenes in Wikipedia processes, his words and opinions carry great weight in the community; his endorsement (or the appearance of his endorsement) is often used as a trump card in debate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Tsk tsk. "Jimbo" is evidently an n-declension masculine, like "Cicero" or "Scipio". The genitive would be argumentum Jimbonis, if anything. But I suspect "ab Jimbone" would be better anyway. O tempora, o latinitas! Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• A similar problem exists when people run off to Godwin. Of course, if something's legal, it must be within policy. J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest WP:NOPONY myself.. (whistles innocently) SirFozzie (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Added. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've added reference to Godwin's Law, as it seems to be a popular topic for the essay. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I like the use of the word 'cabal' in the context of the essay. I can just see the neck-feathers popping up on some of the readers. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I guess if they don't like it they could always appeal to Jimbo... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have posted to Jimbos page before, I asked his OPINION on a matter. Notice it was for a opinion not a change of policy...This essay will be widely cited by the 1000 plus to stop discussion there at all. Make sure discussion and demanding change is differentiated with. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It wasn't aimed at you, and note that this specifically deals with appeals to Jimbo. Nothing about discussion :-) And I certainly hope this essay is cited frequently! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry never meant to say it was, I was just using myself as a example. What I meant is that there is a lot of people watching that page and trying to moderate what they may think Jimbo is ok with. I would just make sure it was clear discussion is cool. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do I get points for having been asked my opinion by Jimbo? Guy (Help!) 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent essay! I was going to suggest WP:JIMBO, but that's already taken, isn't it. —DoRD (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Shameless Advertising

Hey Wikipedia Administrators, I am here to advertise my nomination to be on the Bot Approvals Group. Take a look if you have some time. Tim1357 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User name question

I just noticed that an editor has registered the user name Hirohitito (talk · contribs), which appears to be a reference to Hirohito, Japan's emperor during World War II. If anyone registered a close variant of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini they'd probably be blocked for having an offensive user name - is this in the same category? The editor's only contributions so far have been to create a short stub on British war crimes, which when combined with the user name suggests that they're here to POV-push. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've knocked the stub into shape, should be neutral now. I found this when looking to see what linked there. Usernames should be discussed with the user on their talk page and the username noticeboard is that way. I've notified the user of this thread. Fences&Windows 23:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, it would be horrible to pick the name of an emperor who presided, post-war, for 35 years over a peaceful country. How dare he! --Golbez (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A little sensitive, Herr Goebbels? ☺ - Nunh-huh 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:General Tojo would be probably a better equivalent to those others; Hirohito did not really have a great deal of control over the actions of the Japanese government during the war. And General Tojo was, in fact, declared to be an unacceptable username, although it looks like that account had some other issues as well that led to its block. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration clerks

The Arbitration clerks welcome the following users to the clerk team as trainees:

• AlexandrDmitri (talk · contribs)
• Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs)
• DoriSmith (talk · contribs)
• MBK004 (talk · contribs)

The clerk team as well as the committee would also like to congratulate the following clerks who have been confirmed as "full clerks":

• Dougweller (talk · contribs)
• Lankiveil (talk · contribs)
• Seddon (talk · contribs)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

/b/tards planning a new sneaky attack.

This was posted to AIV. I am moving it here without comment. --Jayron32 00:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

/b/ is planning another attack--Strabismus (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This can be mitigated by reviewing the lines of Special:Log/upload and Commons:Special:Log/upload that contain "new version". MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of a vicious circle. If they got girlfriends they'd quickly have something else to occupy their time. Yet, their essence precludes the possibility of ever getting a girlfriend. Or laid. Anyone feel like springing for a few streetwalkers? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's it, poke the bear with the stick. That won't cause any problems. --Golbez (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The thread has already made it past Page 15, so there shouldn't be much more to worry about... for now. Besides, is anything /b/ does considered "sneaky"? caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's news to any Admin, then I have another one for you: the sun plans on rising tomorrow! Everyone make your plans accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war and insisting on original research by user:BehnamFarid

Edit war and insisting on original research by user:BehnamFarid in Masoud Alimohammadi. (I have no time to follow up my complaint) --Taranet (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

BehnamFarid indeed has a highly problematic history of aggressive behaviour in all kinds of conflict situtions, and in the present case he is again obstinately refusing to understand the principles of WP:OR. Moreover, with this edit, where he uses a reference to an old real-life harassment campaign against me in order to intimidate me from intervening in the situation as an admin, I feel he has seriously crossed a line. I would appreciate if some other admin could have a look into this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Block review of User:Jpat34721

See also: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

NOTE: This user is blogging comments related to this discussion here. --GoRight (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for some more eyes on the indefinite block just implemented on this editor by Jehochman. I had been following a discussion initiated by the editor on the COI noticeboard about User:William M. Connolley here. The point, which I understand has been raised before, is whether WMC has a COI relating to Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident or related articles that should affect his editing. The discussion was, as far as I can see, unhelpfully heated on all sides. I posted my assessment here, and the discussion sat for about 24 hours before Jpat left two more responses. He was then indefinitely blocked by Jehochman, who left his reasoning on User_talk:Jpat34721. I am concerned in that the three edits listed, here, here and here do not show any egregious or even inappropriate behavior that I can see. As such it is unclear to me why he has been indefinitely blocked; I think in indefinitely blocking an editor the reasons should be clear. The user had once been blocked as a sockpuppet, but was then cleared by checkuser Alison after offering his real name.[51] I am raising it here for review at Jehochman's suggestion. Mackan79 (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, this editor had recently been subject to a community sanction as a result of edit warring. He then simultaneously launched an appeal against the sanction and a Conflict of Interest complaint against another editor. Despite broad hints, he proceeded to make wild and insupportable accusations, leading several editors to opine that he appeared to have conceived a vendetta against his target. --TS 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"wild and insupportable accusations" - Hmmm, where else might this type of thing be found. Enough said. --GoRight (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole scenario seems to be a direct result of attempts to stifle dissenting opinion on global warming articles ultimately resulting in the indef block of an editor that feels these articles are being controlled by a group of editors. This pattern seems to follow these articles from what I can tell resulting in numerous blocks and bans of editors wishing to include information that does promote not AGW. Even worse is that this opinion has been noted outside of WP and this is just another example that would give them evidence that these articles are indeed being controlled. Arzel (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty much nails it. ATren (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fringe points of view are not given equal footing with mainstream, reliably sourced ones. It is an issue that comes up time and time again in politically-charged topic areas. Those that come here with a battlefield mentality, as these users are clearly doing, are going to wind up frustrated and blocked, and deservedly so. Tarc (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change sceptics are engaging in a long-running battle to elevate the minority view to parity with the overwhelming majority view. To suggest it's being stifles is fatuous, it already has coverage way above its actual traction in the real world. There have been WP:BLP violations, special pleading, original research, tendentious editing, civil and uncivil POV-pushing and sundry other kinds of battleground behaviour on both sides. Everyone is subject to the same rules but as it happens the sceptics are the ones who keep popping their heads over the parapet, so they are the ones who keep getting shot at. The problem is that the sceptics seem to see it as some kind of religious duty to defend the world against the scientific establishment's view that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. We've seen the same over creationism, that took a very long time to damp down. We've also seen it over homeopathy and various other pseudoscience topics. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nahh, it's a good block. . . and the only times I've seen it noted outside of wiki, is by people one person; with the wherewithal to publish unsubstantiated opinion after unsuccessfully trying to push their POV here. Not that it'll do much good- but I'll come out of lurking mode for a bit to support this block. Some people are not here to build an encyclopedia -they're just here to further real-world disputes. -R. Baley (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this block is completely unwarranted. There is absolutely nothing actionable on those three diffs. Unless there is some further evidence coming from the blocking admin, he should be unblocked immediately. ATren (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The accusations that this is part of some anti-anti-GW stifling is absurd. The block is for conduct, not a political view. These arguments seem very much like soapboxing and are counter-productive. I can understand asking for the blocking administrator to clarify matters, but getting into conspiracy theories is likely to get you ignored. Personally, I wouldn't have made the block, though I do believe that the COI accusations were done as retaliation and JP should have withdrawn sooner. In his defense, myself and others had asked him for specific diffs to show disruption from WMC and he was attempting to do so when he was blocked. The reason I haven't unblocked is that Jehochman has implied that JP was violating a topic ban, and I don't know enough of the situation to say that isn't true. -- Atama頭 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be useful to have the administrator who placed the topic ban comment here. I'll leave them a notification. To me the subsequent activities looked like "pushing the envelope" or testing limits of the topic ban, and disruptive to boot. An aggravating factor is that the account has been here since 2007 and has only substantially edited two highly controversial political articles. From all appearances they are here with an agenda that does not mesh with Wikipedia's agenda. Browse the user's contribution history. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I think we need more than generalities to indefinitely block someone from editing Wikipedia. Browsing the history I personally see very little evidence for anything, since they have only edited for such a short amount of time. In any case, to indefinitely block someone who has made a small amount of edits, because their edits do not show sufficient breadth or value, is not a passable idea in my view. The reason to indefinitely block someone from editing Wikipedia is that the problems with their editing are irreconcilable with a reasonable amount of effort. I become concerned when admins start to say it's enough that someone's failed to show their worth in a short amount of time. Mackan79 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The block requires review. It appears to be for Vandalism (by tag), where the editor was making constructive edits. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I understand that the rationale for the block is because the editor was topic banned from the article in question, but then posted a COI notice about another editor who is a frequent participant in the same article. I think the question that needs to be answered is, "Does a topic ban prohibit the banned editor from engaging in dispute resolution with another editor from the same topic?" I believe that we (no nosism intended, I mean the community) usually allow banned editors, including topic bans, to continue to use the various dispute resolution forums. If so, then this block should be lifted and a note should be left on the climate change probation forum making it clear that bans do not prevent banned editors from pursuing dispute resolution with anyone in the appropriate resolution forums. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  Actually your question should be: "Is there a dispute between the editor and the other party?", before asking whether dispute-resolution is reasonable or not. As far as i can see from the COI board, there wasn't, and the editor failed to provide reasonable evidence for his claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I guess we'll have to disagree on that one, but I've already given my opinion in the other board thread, so I won't repeat it here. Cla68 (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Failure to achieve your standard of "reasonable" is not a blockable offense. He believed his claim was valid, he used dispute resolution, he provided more information when requested, and for all this good faith editing, he was rewarded with an indef block. That's completely unsupportable. He's also a new editor, making this particularly biting. ATren (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Let me get the ball rolling; I don't think this was a great block, and would support overturning it. It seemed a bit premature and over the top; I'm not sure the user did anything concrete to result in the sort of send off he got. Yeah, he was being a bit vexatious in his pursuit of WMC, but I'm not sure a "GTFO" block was warrented here, especially with the somewhat unpleasant comments left by the blocking admin when the block was administered. I don't think this user had yet passed into the unredeemable bin yet, regardless of the problems they have caused while here. I am in no way excusing the problems they have caused, but this block seems out of proportion to those problems. --Jayron32 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think the article ban was an overreaction in the first place, and now this indefinite block too. I don't think they're improper in the sense of being out of process or against policy, just harsher and with less attempt to warn and counsel the editor than necessary. Even if the block is good, given the editor's subsequent apologies, explanations, and promises to disengage[52] I don't see anything to be gained by continuing the block. The editor is clearly trying to be a good citizen, engaging, and listening, so a block serves no preventive purpose. Nevertheless, to avoid possible mistakes I would suggest waiting for Jehochman to comment, and treat this as lifting a block rather than overturning it as such. Also, a gentle reminder - if this is an article probation issue isn't it best forum-wise that we get in the practice of discussing probation enforcement on the probation enforcement pages rather than here at AN? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• He was being disruptive and wikilawyering about it. He was asked several times to drop the stick but continued to lay about the horse carcass. A block is not really a surprise under those circumstances. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• What Guy said. Also, what Jehochman said. Also, what Guy said above. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

  I find these comments disappointing. "Wikilawyering" is a Wikipedian term of art -- one of dozens -- that does not exist anywhere else in the world that I'm aware of. It's also a classic fault of new editors, since basically it comes down to wielding policies clumsily. Are we an organization that creates concepts and then bans editors for not quickly picking up on them? Mackan79 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• The term is well-enough understood, it means debating the finer points of the letter of policy in order to violate the spirit of it. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not involved in this particular dispute but it seems to me that the offence that's been committed here is the persistent hounding, despite requests to desist, of an editor who has through no fault of his own become something of a hate figure in the right-wing blogosphere. About all that can be said in Jpat's favour is that he acted naively (at best). Is an indef block the best solution to that? I'm unsure, but at the least an interaction ban with WMC would have been justified, as was done with Jettamann (talk · contribs). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can this be demonstrated? As noted here, Jpat contested WMC's actions in pursuing the initial article ban against Jpat. If Jpat had any history of pursuing WMC, I am not able to find it. Mackan79 (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are a couple non-obvious things going on. One is that the conflict of interest noticeboard is not part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Dispute resolution is for content disagreements, not for repeating blogosphere troll memes, such as User:William M. Connolley has a conflict of interest with respect to climate change articles because he's a professional climate scientist. This would be like saying Daniel Pearly (a professional astronomer) has a COI when editing gamma ray burst, an article that never would have become featured without his help. I see that User:Jpat34721 wants to edit melanoma. That's a good sign, and I am willing to fix the block length to 24 hours, on condition that he ceases all hounding of WMC. It was very clear that Jpat34721 disliked his article-ban, and sought out the "leader" of those he perceived in opposition, and went head hunting. That sort of behavior is unacceptable, and should routinely result in a block. Those who haven't been policing this dispute may think this response harsh. Well, get involved and see what it's like before you criticize those willing to do a hard, dirty job that you aren't doing. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • So the article ban is maintained, and a ban on interaction with WMC? I'd support that. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's see what people say, especially uninvolved people, and then somebody should log the result. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That sounds like a reasonable outcome. It is not unreasonable to maintain the existing article ban or to require Jpat to steer clear of WMC. I suggest also requiring him to stay away from the William Connolley article, as was required of Jettamann (talk · contribs) when he was sanctioned under the CC article probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

        Just my $0.02. I note a disturbing trend forming here and elsewhere to build a wall of invincibility around WMC to shield him from criticism. We must all accept the public criticism that is foisted upon us. That is, in part, how this place works. WMC is anything but a wilted lily who needs to hide behind community sanctions. If WMC does something that deserves to be criticized he should dang well have to accept that criticism like everyone else.

        So, in this circumstance and recognizing that COI charges have been considered against WMC many times in the past (by others) and rejected, I should think that an assurance to drop the current COI case and to avoid unnecessary conflict in the future should be sufficient.

        If an interaction ban is to be enacted it would only be appropriate if it went in both directions for the obvious reasons. --GoRight (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would support Jehochman's compromise solution above. Commute the block to "time served", with the note that a short block was likely warrented given the hounding issues. Institute an interaction ban to run concurrent to the current article ban, and lets see how this goes. This latest solution from Jehochman is much better than the GTFO-block we started with here. --Jayron32 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • About five hours ago I reset the block to 9 hours so it would total 24. The fact that the user wants to continue editing other subjects is an encouraging sign. Jehochman ^Brrr 16:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think you did right there. I don't believe him to be evil or bad, but he was in serious danger of donning the proverbial Spider-Man suit. Hopefully he has now backed away from the Reichstag. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Likewise, Jehochman. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of editors seem to misunderstand WP:COI. COI is allowed, en.Wikipedia would grind to a halt if COI weren't allowed, but an editor must be very heedful when editing an article in which they have a COI. Anyone editing in their respective professional field has a COI, which may or may not be a worry, following how they edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwen's exactly right. That's why myself and others asked for evidence of disruption to show that WMC shouldn't edit the article (which is a moot point since it has been said that he had voluntarily withdrawn from the article anyway). I support the unblock, I don't think it's completely fair to say that JP didn't put the stick down because his most recent contributions to the COI report were an attempt to provide diffs that were requested of him. In any case, if he moves on to other things, then that's fantastic. -- Atama頭 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Many core topics on en.Wikipedia are way slanted owing not to the COI of editors, but because they edit towards their own sundry interests. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to pursue this at the moment, but I'd like to opine that there remains no basis here for any sanction. First, the issue Jpat raised was not a general one that WMC should not edit in the area because he works in the field. It is, at least as far as I understand, that he is a contributor to a blog that is part of the controversy and, as I understand, that WMC works closely with those who have faced accusations. If true, that is the kind of COI where one could look more closely at his editing, and numerous commenters at the COI noticeboard said as much. One commenter suggested that the link between RealClimate and this controversy is negligible, but the point has not been clarified as far as I can see. Regardless, the issue raised is not just that WMC is a professional in the field. Besides that, with Jpat, it appears that WMC requested sanctions against Jpat and then went to request for a specific administrator to evaluate the sanction request. Some editors have suggested that this is fine. I disagree; I cannot imagine arguing for a sanction against someone and then picking out an administrator to see if they would evaluatethe request. Even if WMC was utterly scrupulous in picking someone whom he did not expect would have any bias, this looks awful, and for that reason alone it is completely unreasonable to suggest that Jpat should not have questioned. Finally, we remain without any difs of any misconduct. I'd like to see where this goes, but it strikes me as another exmaple in a frankly indefensible trend of assuming bad faith, and banning editors without any real effort to work with them. Mackan79 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

When people make mistakes in their assumptions, one of the key factors that I use to figure out if they are adapting their argument to the facts or the facts to the argument is if one of the base and key assumptions is proved false, do they change their position, or does the argument adapt. With that in mind, I feel it's my duty to inform you that I was the one who raised the report about this user. Difs of misconduct were presented in the report, though I was chastised by 2/0 for filing bad reports, and in fact, he basically rejected 3 of my other reports. Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was eventually able to find the original report. The problem is not just if someone initiates a request however (which is not what I meant to imply), but equally if they are an involved editor taking a position in favor of it. I am not saying it is necessarily wrong either, but merely that it would look quite odd on the other side. An explanation that the admin was the one who usually handled these requests would probably suffice. But to pick someone out of a hat, and make the request in a way that suggests a prior relationship, with no other indication of why that admin was requested, would not inspire any reasonable person's confidence; in fact the more clueful the person, very likely the worse it would look. I consider that a useful metric: what would a reasonable but uninitiated person think, looking at this situation? Mackan79 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So if you were made aware that 2/0 was by far and away the most active admin notifier and closed a vast majority of the four previously closed reports, you'd have no problems with WMC going to him? Good! I'm glad we all agree that anyone who looked into the situation in its totality would have no problems at all. Hipocrite (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. The users contacted were 2/0 and BozMo, and BozMo was the one who then proposed the sanction. When I query BozMo's edits I see his most edited page is Global Warming, and in running a search of him on the talk page I see him being criticized for a lack of impartiality. Here he suggests regarding the CRU controversy, "I guess so far we have only learned some sceptics are prepared to law break to try to muddy the water which raises questions on lesser moral standards like telling the truth." This is not a criticism of BozMo; no one is impartial on every subject, and few seem to be on this one. But it is to question WMC's impartiality in requesting that BozMo evaluate this request, and if we discourage canvassing, I would think we'd discourage involved editors from requesting specific admins to resolve specific requests. Or at least we'd expect people to complain. I'm glad to say that issue is moot now, in any case. Mackan79 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have apologized to the two admins involved for my implication that they acted in bad faith. I stand by that but I am glad to see some sympathy for the position that recruiting admins by those involved in requests for sanctions looks bad. Requests for sanctions raise blood pressures and when you add on top of it the appearance of unfairness, it aggravates the situation and makes graceful acceptance of the sanction much more difficult. I would like to see some policy clarification that discourages this kind of thing. JPatterson (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Often, these editors don't understand the policies, so they'll quickly go enough astray that a block can be supported, but in truth they were blocked only for their PoVs. This has been going on for years. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that because it has been going on for years it should be allow to continue, or that a stop should be put to it? Please clarify. --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't support it, if that's what you mean. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so if you don't support it, what specifically does that mean to you in terms of the current block and topic ban of Jpat? What should be done for each because of this perspective, in your opinion? --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought Jehochman helpfully thought about what had happened and cut the block down to a much more fitting 24h. The topic ban should likely be looked at again soon, now that Jpat seems to have a deeper understanding of policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if in future it would be better to redirect discussions on climate change-related sanctions and blocks to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. This might be a useful way of drawing in admins with a fresh eye. --TS 20:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Several people here have said things roughly equivalent to Regardless, the issue raised is not just that WMC is a professional in the field and no-one has yet pointed out that this is false (given that we are not, at the moment, talking about Bluetooth). It isn't hard to tell this; a visit to my user page will do William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

McCready topic ban

Resolved

 – No consensus to alter the indef topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Per McCready's own request for a vote, which has been started below. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:ANI and restoring archived material. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Archive search for McCready
• Arbcom punts issue back to community

---

As per instructions, I request that my topic ban be lifted on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Please come to my talkpage to discuss. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [53]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban imposed here [54] and here [55]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to WP:AN? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline lifting the ban, due to the inadequacy of the request: it does not tell us who imposed which ban and for which reason, or why it should be lifted now.  Sandstein  18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot see any mention of User:Mccready (aka Kevin McCready) at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Whatever the restrictions are, or why they were imposed by whoever, they should be evident to other editors without recourse to a major forensic exercise. When restrictions were recently imposed on User:Levineps, a description of the restrictions was created at User:Levineps/terms. If there are restrictions in force on User:Mccready, they should be displayed in the same way, and listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions .. otherwise they are de facto listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [56] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [57] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [58]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [59]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [60] and Virtual Steve [61] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [62]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion should be at [63] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [64]. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light. I was the one inserting well sourced science based material. Yes it's a major forensic exercise to dig all this up and demonstrate it. But the links are all on my page. I have edited in many areas since the ban and my talkpage shows the positive feedback from the community. I propose that I return to normal editing and any sanctions can then be quickly applied if needed. I must say it's refreshing not to face a vindictive and vicious attitude. Thank you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).

This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[65], including with an IP[66][67] (see checkuser results).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[68]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.

sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Middle 8 has retired (1. how sweet that he comes out of retirement to harass me 2. how sweet it is that he ignores my history since the ban with an insulting put down 3. if appropriate I'm happy to provide evidence off wiki to any admin who requests it about who this person is, his previous wiki actions and various incarnations on wiki 3. to provide this evidence on wiki would "out" him as he has requested anonymity), may I take it that there is an assumption of good faith from other editors that I will resume full editing and be sanctioned if needed and that at this stage it ill serves the community to dig up a very disputed and convoluted history and prolong the drama? Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If Middle 8 is being disruptive/dishonest with new accounts (RTV does not allow disruptive socking), then on-wiki evidence can be provided. You're right, off-wiki is off-wiki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[69] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

• FloNight [70] [71]
• MastCell [72]
• David Ruben [73]
• FeloniousMonk [74]
• 2over0 (see edit summary: [75])
• Jim62sch [76]
• Orangemarlin (see edit summary: [77])
• Friday [78]
• Jefffire [79]
• Arthur Rubin [80]

None of the above editors are fringe-promoters and indeed many are actively devoted to removing fringecruft. (So much for "major forensic exercises". The editors who urge leniency are frequently those who know Mccready's history the least.)

As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[81], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all wikignoming, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)

Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A word of support for Middle 8. He is not using a sock, and I too have supported the topic ban of McCready, even though I'm not listed above. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirm that long ago before the topic ban I found Mccready difficult to work with - as I recall (caution: unverified personal recollection) he was adding well-sourced material but skewing the article and not collaborating well with other editors at the talkpage. I have not reviewed Mccready's recent edits, but I can confirm that Middle 8 knows what they are talking about. As a side note, last I checked Acupuncture was in dire need of a good copyeditor. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Summary

I thought I recognized McCready's name, so I did a bit of digging. The original topic ban was put in place here. He asked for a review here. He asked for a review on his talk page, but the admin was unable to complete it due to personal reasons. He then went to ANI to complain about that discussion, which resulted in a block. Another ANI discussion about the topic ban arose when McCready posted on a ban-related page. I think that brings us up to date. Note that I am not taking sides in this dispute, just trying to gather some discussions so people can see the history of this debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful summary, thanks. FYI, Scientizzle compiled something similar on his (archived) talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban still unresolved; he is editing in banned area again

The bot for this page archived [82] the most recent discussion on the indef topic ban of Mccready (talk · contribs · block user) before any consensus was reached on whether or not to lift it. See discussion archive here. The ban is on "all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed" [83]. Mccready has now edited Talk:Acupressure [84] in clear violation of the ban. The community owes him clarification: should we let the ban stand (and come back for review after X period of time a/o when Y conditions are met), lift it with the condition that it can be re-imposed if needed, or something else. User has been notified [85]. thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the last time this was discussed was in December 2009 (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Brilliant,_fabulous). It seems to me that McCready is still obsessive about pseudoscience topics and I am not comfortable with lifting the topic ban as it's close to impossible to keep a lid on those topics already. I've modified my opinion from above because in looking through the archives I find a fair bit of evidence of previous ban evasion and other nonsense (including recently editing in this area without the ban being lifted); that is not a good sign. This may be a case of "give a dog a bad name" but I really do think that these articles are better off without McCready's input. I don't think it's a problem necessarily of whether he can make properly neutral edits to this content, it's what happens when anyone disputes his edits that causes the problem. I think the WP:TIGERS are best kept in their cages on this one.

The persuasive factor here is that during the period of the ban McCready has been virtually inactive. The topic ban has been, in effect, a siteban since he appears to have virtually no interest in any other topics. He's not established any kind of reputation for reasonable interaction with others because he's not spent any time learning how to do that in areas where he is less emotionally vested. If he'd spent the last year quietly working away on some unrelated subjects and shown ability to work productively with people of different opinions then it might be different, but what we actually see is a period return to ask for the topic ban to be lifted, request denied, and he goes away for another wikibreak. In other words, he only has one area of interest, and he's shown over a long period of time that he causes serious problems whenever he edits in that area of interest. With no problem-free track record to go on, I can't in good conscience recommend lifting this ban. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrably false Guy and if you'd spend time researching rather than smearing you could find the truth. Your statement is so full of innuendo, contradictions and pure irrelavancies that I don't need to point them out. But just for the record my My recent edits include (and will you try to tell me they are not a contribution???)

Richard Dawkins (8)

Ubiquitin (8)

Osteochondritis dissecans (7)

Talk:Water fluoridation (7)

Fluoroquinolone toxicity (7)

Missy Higgins (6)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (5)

Fiat money (5)

PubMed (5)

Lee Myung-bak (5)

Karl Kruszelnicki (5)

User talk:Collectonian (5)

Silicosis (4)

Antireligion 4)

Meningitis (4)

New article creation (perhaps you can do a search to see how many I have done???

There are also plenty of examples of my collegiate editing on my talkpage. Will you please do me the courtesy of reading them. I have tried assiduously from the time of the ban to avoid wikidrama and now it is old enemies who want to create it. My recent record shows I just want to get on editing.

Now will you try to address the question. Even supposing the ban was validly placed (and that is disputed) it is false to argue that normal sanctions cannot be applied if I step out of line. You will also notice, will you not, that the POV pusher who has come out of retirement again and who is behind this from the start, has failed once again to come up with the goods on acupressure. He objects to scientific material being placed in areas where he edits (I can give a list of these off wiki because we wouldn't want to identify him would we?) Finally, will you investigate canvassing by him? A simple yes or no will suffice. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And you think that your reputation for short temper and personal attacks is going to be helped by that outburst, do you? I think you may be wrong about that. The edit count above is tiny, and as I said for most of this period you have been entirely inactive. Yes, I am sure you can be civil with people who agree with you but disagreement is something you're plainly unable to handle gracefully, and those articles are a constant source of disagreement. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guy on this. My run-ins with McCready were from a few years ago, and I'd normally be reluctant to base anything on them after all this time, but if exactly the same problems are continuing in the same area, with no editing in other areas for the sake of comparison, it signals a serious problem. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think we probably both agree with his POV (and I certainly have a problem with some recent edits by Middle8 whose contributions I am now starting to review) but I would be much happier if there were a history of collegiate work on some other subject. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Review to your heart's content, Guy. It doesn't matter, because I don't plan on editing stuff here other than films and music; the idea that an encyclopedia can work without expert review (let alone that the final say belongs to a guy who happened to make some bucks during the dot-com boom and is completely unqualified for the task) would be pathetic if it weren't so hilarious. For most topics, WP is a drama-fest and time-sink, and by its own admission, an unreliable source. And no, I haven't canvassed. I don't even know most of the people who have commented here or at WP:ARB, except for a few encounters with Guy and a friendly relationship on- and off-wiki with Brangifer, with whom I haven't been in touch for ages. He found this discussion all by himself, believe it or not. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but this has got to be the fourth time you've said that under your various accounts, right? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Middle 8, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out. Or did you want someone to try to persuade you to stay? You might have a long wait. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He said "except for film and music". Doesn't seem like Meatball:Goodbye to me. Nathan ^T 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year, guys. Thanks for the collegiality. Always a pleasure. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

M8, aren't you the editor with the undisclosed COI and a history of conflict with McCready with your previous account(s)? It's kind of unseemly for you to be lobbying this aggressively. Skinwalker (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no COI here, undisclosed or otherwise. (Mccready might have one; I'm not sure; scroll down to the bit about $50,000.) Please read the Q&A on my user page. As for conflict with Mccready, anyone who substantially disagrees with him winds up in the path of an angry mastodon: that's the whole point of this ongoing discussion. Sorry if commenting on something I actually know about (with evidence 'n stuff) is "COI" or "unseemly"; I realize that expertise is not the Wikipedia way. ;-) --Middle 8 (talk)

Your COI is a matter of record under your previous account. Don't push it. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, dude. Either you've got me confused with someone else, or you're confusing some editor's accusation with an actual finding (as I recall, there was one accusation at ANI, which was quickly dismissed as being bullshit). Re-read WP:COI. Members of X profession may edit articles on X topic as long as they're not POV-pushing, and no admin ever found that I was. However, if you're right about there being a "matter of record", I'm sure you can email me the diff(s) off-wiki, right? And if you can't, I'll take your silence as an admission that you're wrong (which you are). And lay off the uncivil bullying act, tough guy -- it sets a bad example for other editors (cough, cough). --Middle 8 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

11 users have now commented. Only Middle8 appears to have read the full history and users can make their own judgment on his views and motive for doing so. One user has declined because links weren't provided. Since the links were on my talkpage and I requested people to look at them, and indeed they have been provided above by other users, users can again make their own judgment. Others have alluded to the possibility that the ban doesn't exist. Others have commented on their past views but have not reviewed my edits since the ban. One user has commented at greater length on my edits since the ban but has not responded to my further questions. In summary there is no consensus to support Middle8's views. So, unless others want to support Middle8's vendetta (and please address the original question with a more purposeful focus if you do), I intend to resume normal editing. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is false - I also read the full history and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The ban exists, this is not in doubt. I have said that I would not support lifting of the ban. Others agree, and this does not seem to be restricted to those who are on the opposite side from you in respect of fringe and pseudoscience content. ArbCom has said it will leave the ban status to the community, so you need to persuade people. The best way of doing that would be a sustained period of unproblematic editing on other topics. Your edit history shows that when you are not editing the articles in question you are largely inactive, so it is natural that some of us will be sceptical about lifting the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously I disagree Guy on many points. Your opinion that my edits since the "ban" do not amount to much is not shared by all the people who have commented on my talkpage. And please spare me the bullying and threats. I'm at one with Middle8 on this score.

Here are the numbers:

1. Guy who is adamant that the "ban" stays until Guy judges I have done enough editing

2. Even Middle8 is not as hard line as Guy

3.. Sandstein – withdrew from discussion on grounds I didn’t provide links (since it’s all on my talkpage which I’ve referred to multiple times … has obviously not made himself aware of the issue

4. Elen of the Roads – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

5. RUL3R – has not supported Middle8 and Guy,

6. SlimVirgin – an if statement does not support Middle8 and Guy

7. BrownHairedGirl - – has not supported Middle8 and Guy

8. Phoe - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

9. BWilkins - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

10. Brangifer says supported in past when he used a different wikiname, doesn’t comment on now - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

11. The Hand That Feeds - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

12. 2over0 - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

13. Hipocrite - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

14. Skinwalker - - has not supported Middle8 and Guy

Am I missing something Guy or is the "community" represented here by 12 people and myself versus you and Middle8 not as concerned as you are with this vendetta? I will now resume normal editing. You have had a chance to be constructive but you are even more stubborn than Middle8 and on opinion which is not shared by others, you have not responded to my questions. You do not represent the community on this issue.Kevin McCready (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are showing, once again, your combative nature, excessive tendency to personalise and factionalise disputes, and fierce determination to edit these articles. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. Mccready, you will not go back to the topics you are banned from, otherwise I will block you. Understood? The community ban is still in place until such time as it is formally revoked. There is no consensus for doing so here and indeed a plethora of solid arguments have been put forward for keeping it in place. Moreschi (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Kevin, that's a pretty deceptive summary. The point is that we are all against you editing in the area of your topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Now blocked for 100 hours for ignoring the topic ban by editing at chiropractic education. Moreschi (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Predictable, I guess. I hold by my original thought that what we need to see is evidence of the ability to engage in civil debate with people he disagrees with. As I read it, the main problem was that he kept flying off the handle every time someone disagreed with him. I can see why, fringe-pushers are incredibly vexatious and persistent, but losing your temper has never fixed that yet and is unlikely to start any time soon. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose broader indefinite topic ban or siteban

First off, for anyone who hasn't seen it, I did an in-depth evaluation of the topic ban approximately a year ago (Jan. 2009). Mccready wanted a review of the "indefinite topic ban (banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed) with a general probation on pseudoscience of one full year" that I enacted, following ANI discussions, 01:00, May 7, 2008. (This requested review was preceded by a December 2008 ANI discussion and December 2008 AN topic ban review, both which were only semi-productive but certainly provided indication of any support to reduce or eliminate any of Mccready's editing restrictions.) My Jan. 2009 review concluded:

The recent community consensus is clear: Mccready's topic ban is valid and should stand.

This was evidently unsatisfactory, and further discussion turned south as Mccready became more argumentative.

A month later (Feb.-Mar. 2009), admin User:VirtualSteve came to effectively the same conclusions in a further review initiated by Mccready. Then, Mccready initiated a review in March 2009 on ANI, that supported all the previous reviews. After editing sparsely over the next several months, Mccready returned to editing on indefinitely topic banned pages in October 2009. This set off a subsequent round of review that resulted in reiteration fo the status quo by admin Kevin/Rdm2376, followed by dubious & combative WP:AN posts, burned bridges and block drama.

All of these ban reviews have had common responses from Mccready indicating he has not yet and likely never will consider the opinions upholding any topic ban to be of merit (indeed, he apparently believes this "wasn't a 'community ban'"). Comments by Mccready directed at admins that have upheld editing restrictions often fall along the lines of "[a particular admin has shown a] refusal to engage in a logical discussion" presumably because s/he hasn't come to the conclusions desired by Mccready [86]. This has been a pattern of repeated forum shopping and tedious wikilawyering, with multiple instances of aggressive and uncooperative behavior spanning a couple years.

Moreschi's block is perfectly appropriate given that recent edits clearly violated the still-in-effect topic ban; a warning, seen or missed as the case may be, was a courtesy not a requirement in this case. At this point, I would recommend a full indefinite pseudoscience topic ban, broadly construed, at least; perhaps up to a full siteban based on a pattern of behavior that indicates an unwillingness to work within community standards.

Note: I believe Mccready should maintain the ability to respond to any comments in this discussion on his talk page while blocked (assuming that privelage is not reasonably revoked for disruption). Furthermore, I ask that Middle 8 voluntarily disengage from any further participation in this topic due to the long, contentious relationship between these two accounts. — Scientizzle 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, will do. Wishing you well. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know, I do think that what he needs is to gain some experience in articles where he feels less strongly, just getting along with folks with everyday causal disagreements. I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I could be wrong, too. From what I've seen, I think it's doubtful that Mccready will accept anything less than a full elimination of all editing restrictions. To be honest, I was leaning towards 'a clean slate' approach until Mccready started with the deceptive "evaluations" of various opinions (that list of 14 above), consistent with prior patterns of behavior, and then the brash topic-banned editing and the resulting unblock request BS...the patterns of behavior that contributed to the topic ban have not demonstrably changed it seems. — Scientizzle 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "full indefinite pseudoscience topic ban, broadly construed". It's sad to see when certain hot-headed people's emotions get the best of them, and they do things which they might regret later. (Can happen to the best of us, if we hold to some positions very stronlgy.) Unfortunate, yes, and not very helpful. But I am not convinced that an indefinite topic ban is called-for in this case. Could be actually counterproductive. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indef pseudoscience topic ban. I haven't seen enough evidence that such a ban will prevent problems in the pseudoscience area. However, I also oppose lifting of his current restrictions. Perhaps if s/he can show that s/he can contribute to wikipedia in a positive manner, without being a tendentious editor, with more than just a few edits here and there, then the current restrictions could be lifted. DigitalC (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note

At present it seems unlikely this thread will produce a consensus either to lift Mccready's topic ban or to expand it to more topics. To clarify the ban's current status, I have made a new entry at WP:RESTRICT, pointing to the original discussion in May, 2008 that was closed by Scientizzle. To be sure that I correctly stated the ban originally imposed, I discussed the matter with Scientizzle at User talk:Scientizzle#WP:AN discussion of a topic ban for an editor. If the present AN thread reaches a new conclusion that is different, then the entry in WP:RESTRICT can be updated. Since the ban was indefinite, it will continue in effect unless modified here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the reactions from the editor above, I think that what you drafted looks fine:

User	Type	Sanction (quoted verbatim)	Special Enforcement Details	Expiration Date
Mccready	Topic ban	Mccready is indefinitely banned from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed.	Community sanction imposed at this discussion, which occurred on 7 May, 2008	Indefinite

Did you want to do the honours Ed? Once this is done we can mark this thread as closed and continue on as normal. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:HandThatFeeds has now marked the whole Mccready thread as resolved. I have made an entry at WP:RESTRICT as shown above to document the old restriction, which remains in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Decide his fate here

Per McCready's expressed wish here, (removed here), I am starting the procedure which McCready very clearly wished and as he suggested, using his own words.

Basically one should vote "support" for one or the other. A "support" in one section automatically counts as a vote against the other, so negative votes are unnecessary and would only be confusing. A vote to support him staying here should include what conditions he should edit under, for example a topic ban, other condition(s), or no conditions at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't do votes, so I've rejigged this a bit and retitled it. --TS 13:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• McCready should stay,

• Support Broad indefinite bans on broad areas do not work, and are counterproductive. Specific terms for specific areas make more sense, and should not include article talk pages. Collect (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support a site ban. He has good abilities as an editor (and as a skeptic of alternative medicine and chiroquackery I actually share his POV), but his attitude is so bad and contentious that he doesn't belong here. His parting rant gives good evidence of that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since Tony's refactored it, this discussion can now be closed. We arrived at consensus for a topic ban already, McCready's WP:ULTIMATUM does not address the basis of the topic ban in any meaningful way. He may choose to interpret the topic ban as a siteban, that is his problem not ours. There is absolutely no need to reopen this discussion just because he's threatening to throw his toys out of the pram. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm okay with that. As I understand it (somebody will correct me if I'm wrong) McReady asked for his topic ban to be lifted (note emphasis). There has been much discussion but no consensus to lift that ban has emerged. There seems to be no serious discussion of a site ban (again note emphasis). One could make an argument that the suggestion of such a ban was extremely unhelpful. --TS 13:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tony, I was only following McCready's wish. Since he still doesn't believe the topic ban is correct, and has violated it, he seems to be suggesting that the only choices he'll accept are no topic ban or a site ban. Maybe I'm interpreting him incorrectly, but his history here is consistent with that interpretation and I think we should honor this. I'm not going to push the issue and will let you guys decide since you don't seem to mind his continued disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The ban has consensus, if he violates it he can (and should) b blocked, if he wants to appeal it then he can go to the ArbCom ban appeals subcommittee. I don't think anything's going to change here other than his getting blocked for violating the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• As an uninvolved editor in any of this conflict, I don't see this vote as being beneficial to anyone. He can still contribute in other areas outside of his topic ban, should he choose to do so once his block expires. He has a month to consider whether or not he wants to pursue the issue of what he feels is an invalid topic ban or move on to other subjects. On the other hand, if a majority of the votes are for him to stay, but not all mention any specific details as to editing restrictions, he may see that as a way to invalidate the topic ban he has been vehemently arguing against. Let the block expire and give him the option to contribute in other areas, and let his actions after the block be a factor in his participation, not a vote he requested when he was in a rather agitated state. HAZardousMATT^toxic 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• No offense intended, but the fact you are uninvolved may limit your understanding of the history behind his contribution history here. The matter isn't resolved and needs closure. It's not everyday a disruptive editor of this format actually requests to be banned or not. We shouldn't pass up this opportunity to let him know, and I obviously feel we'd be better off without him. I believe most other involved (=know his history here) editors feel the same way. Those who are uninvolved (=usually means they don't know much about this) needn't get involved. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's simply gaming the system. I'm uninvolved, and I have read through the discussion. McReady has exhausted AGF here, and this looks to be a Hail Mary pass by him to get the ban removed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe Chill's RfA

Could an admin close the RfA, as Joe Chill has indicated here that they want to withdraw. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Regards SoWhy 13:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI Steve, cases like these are fine for NAC - see User:Enigmaman/SNOW for instruction on closing. –xeno^talk 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks xeno, I wasn't 100% sure, so if in doubt I leave it for others! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked article subjects

(moved from ANI)

---

Looking at the ANI thread on James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am reminded of something I have been meaning to do for some time. {{Blocked subject}} is advice for blocked subjects. If your template-fu is strong I encourage you to tweak or amend as necessary, for example to include whether the user is blocked or not as a parameter and tailor the message accordingly. Also reduce the length as it is somewhat loquacious. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice template Guy. I've made a suggestion on its talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, feel free to make any changes you like. It's very much a first draft. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Custom signature violates guidelines

Resolved

 – Signature updated. Abecedare (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave1185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) custom signature specifically violates guidelines Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color -- it blinks. Two editors have requested he change the signature User_talk:Dave1185#Your_Signature. He had indicated he will ignore the request. Gerardw (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For lack of a better word, please stop being a DICK. I said I'm ignoring you but I didn't said I'm going to ignore the signature issue, get your facts right. Jeez! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (PS: If you want to do something right, you have to do it yourself. That is precisely what I'm doing now, trying to get things right before I switch to another sig. Mind you, ROME wasn't built overnight, ya'know?)

NB, nothing in your talkpage reply indicates that you intend(ed) to do anything about this, so I think Gerard's facts are correct. A reasonable reply would have been, "Oh, sorry, I didn't know about that rule, I'll change my signature now." Clear. Simple. Polite. Unambiguous. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Right... just because I'm not replying in the way you want me to, doesn't mean that I'm not looking into the issue. Agreed? If that is the case, Jimbo should have made it a policy, right? Give the man some time... and by dragging me here is not helping either, wouldn't you agree? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (NB: That was me trash talking with Bugs, your fault was that you think too much without clarifying things with me first. Cripes~!)

• Block him until he agrees to adopt a signature in line with Wikipedia's standards. (And I don't particularly like the tone of his comment above or the accompanying edit summary...) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• So by blocking me for something so minuscule is going to solve the problem? How brilliant~! And by that, do you mean that I can't even experiment with a new sig before I switch to it~? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (PS: My bad... the "M" is something like a default setting that had been left in the "ON" position, by default on my Firefox browser.)

It's been three days since the issue was brought up on your talk page. When do you think you're going to find some time to work on a new one? Would you consider simply removing the 'blink' from your current signature? You can then take your time figuring out how you'd like your new sig to look. --Onorem♠Dil 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, it is done~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anything else to still be done here then? --Onorem♠Dil 16:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is, get them to drop the stick and move on! I mean it's just a sig, come'on! And was I wrong for calling that thread starter a DICK? I don't think so... he could have clear things up with me instead of rubbing me the wrong way. Jeez! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

But it was a 'M' minor edit summary, so surely inconsequential? I really wish people would be more careful about marking edits as minor. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dave1185 is obviously aware of the issue now. I suggest that if he reuses the non-compliant signature, he be blocked. If he changes it to an acceptable version, we can mark the issue resolved. His recent edit-summaries don't reflect well on him, but I think it would be better to simply ignore them unless such conduct is or becomes a pattern. Abecedare (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I find all "fancy" sigs disruptive. They are hard to read and clutter up the edit box. TT's is just as annoying as Dave1185's to me. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear how you find a slightly colourful signature irritating on a par with an entirely colourful and oversized and animated signature. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It goes on for ages, isn't clear what links where, changes all the time, and clutters up the edit box, making replying harder than it needs to be. That said, although I can be an arse sometimes, I don't think I'd be such an arse as to try to get someone blocked for their vanity. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to your edit-summary of "you did ask" – I did not, in fact, ask to be called an arse. I asked a perfectly legitimate question to which you have, in all fairness, made an attempt to supply an answer. However, your answer does not explain how a signature which "goes on for ages" is annoying (mine satisfies the length-limit in WP:SIG), nor how the fact that a small element of it changes each time used (as some other users' signatures do) qualifies the signature as annoying. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So it doesn't bother you that it clutters up the edit box and it's hard to know what links where in it? The lengths of it is uneccessary and simply serves to make your name stick out more than others, and the changing wording is just confusing. Strikes me that you care just as much as Dave for criticism of your vanity sig. DuncanHill (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Per his earlier recommendation for me: Block him until he agrees to adopt a signature in line with Wikipedia's standards. Note also that I subscribe to WP:DENY. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Of course I agree to adopt a signature in line with Wikipedia's standards. I have always agreed to this, and my signature does comply to the standards. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't this been discussed dozens of times before and come to the conclusion that editors matter? There's a difference between a custom signature and this custom signature (The voice oɟ mud^{I am your voice!!}). This page explains the rules for them. This discussion is regarding Dave1185's signature. Please start another discussion if you wish to discuss custom signatures in general. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, to discuss Dave's signature: I don't find it any more disruptive than most other custom signatures. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I say, stop wasting your time and get back to improving them articles~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes Dave, that is a good idea. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some editors of custom sigs don't understand that what they see on their own display often doesn't look the same on other displays (and might even be unhappy with what they saw, after all the careful and fun tweaking some have done), owing to how boldings, sizings and default font groups can and do vary a lot across browsers and OSs. Either way, I do think blinking is far beyond the pale. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Echoing what Gwen Gale has posted here. I recently saw that one of my earlier sigs looked horridly misshapen if Cleartype wasn't turned on in Windows... font parameters can vary rather drastically when you take into account the various browsers, operating systems, and settings that people have on their computers. For example my sig's font doesn't display in Windows XP, but displays in Windows Vista and Windows 7. If it's an older OS like XP, it simply displays a "normal" font of sorts. One needs to make a sort of compromise, taking into account these variables, and the rules laid down in the signature policy... The Thing _{Vandalize me} 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you can avoid the problem (and avoid your sig filling two lines in the edit box) by keeping it simple. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up what I have to say, about why it's meaningful to keep these within some kind of bounds (hence why this thread wasn't "teh dramz"), the first time I saw a custom sig with a graphic, I thought it looked wonderful. The code was short and sweet, the graphic was a clean and cool SVG and it didn't break up text at all. However, one could quickly foresee what would happen if a few hundred editors got stirred up to do likewise. Server load worries wholly aside, the outcome wouldn't have been high end industrial design. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

One particular problem is sigs which are invisible to users of the greenscreen gadget (I use it as without it my eyes get strained). DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the old Bobby Standard still exist? The online recruitment system I built for B&Q about six or seven years ago had to meet that, with various low-vision renderings done via server-side html substitution (screen readers, y'see). I got my bike mechanic mate Bob to test it in screen reader, he's a Jaws user and editor of the local talking newspaper. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight and Abd

I believe Abd is banned fomr becoming involved in new disputes. Does this edit [87] constitute a violation of that ban? Guy (Help!) 08:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it does. I have removed it and notified Abd on his talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that went really well. :-P Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Abd responds to warning with wall-of-text rebuttals, wikilawyering, fisking. In other news, Vatican admits Pope "is Catholic", naturalists report bearshit in woods. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And why did ATren insert himself in the middle of this mess? Woogee (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better if you guys stayed away from Abd. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit late for this, but take it to AE or the request for clarification, or apparently, my talk page. I also am of the opinion that this would be a lot easier to sort out if the same cast of characters didn't show up every time.--Tznkai (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Guidance for younger editors

To address several concerns that have been raised from time to time concerning the participation of younger people on Wikipedia, I have posted an essay (and potentially guideline at some point) captioned Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff. My main observation is that from a young person's perspective it could suffer from TLDR. Leaky Caldron 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but I'm not sure what is expendible. I thought about breaking it into parts, but that would be more complicated than necessary. Suggestions welcome (on the talkpage there is probably best). Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, to a young person all of Wikipedia might seem TLDR. I don't think the essay is doing any harm that way. -- Atama頭 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this essay regards actual young people, and not just "Wikipedia newcomers". –MuZemike 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I wonder if we can have a link to this placed, once implemented, on pages we've identified as IPs of K-12s. Valley2city^‽ 20:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Resolved

 – Too obvious to be Plaxico, but certainly a self-outed spammer, nonetheless —DoRD (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello good sirs. I'm running into trouble with editing. You see I'm trying to spread the word / create an artical about my new website and social experiment: "H*lp M*ke M* * M*ll**n". However, when I try to create a page it just keeps messing up preexisting pages. Sorry for the inconvenience but could someone steer me in the right direction. Thank You! 66.71.74.127 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been done? Anyways, if it's a new website, it's unlikely to meet our criteria for web content outlined at WP:WEB. –xeno^talk 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou ill read that. 66.71.74.127 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also please note that Wikipedia should not be used as a means of promotion. Your edits so far appear to be largely promotional in nature, and Wikipedia is not the right tool to "get the word out" about your website. You're welcome to contribute here, but please don't set up pages to your site to try and attract business. ThemFromSpace 00:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• [88] is categorically spam. The chances of the domain helpmakemeamillion.moonfruit.com ever being of any use to the encyclopaedia are slightly less than those of Willy on Wheels gaining a seat on the arbitration committee, I suggest we blacklist it. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Indeed, looks like they went right back to adding the link. Would agree blacklisting the link, blocking the IP on its next offense, and perhaps we should also take a look at other moonfruit.com links –xeno^talk 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  I'd that say today's FA is high enough profile already! ;) —DoRD (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Lol, what ever are you talking about ? ;> –xeno^talk 23:08, 19 January 2010

  What, me? —DoRD (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Imposition of discretionary sanctions

The Falun Gong decision is modified as follows:

(a) The article probation clause (remedy #1) is rescinded.

(b) Standard discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) are authorized for "Falun Gong" and all closely related articles.

This modification does not affect any actions previously taken under the article probation clause; these actions shall remain in force.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 07:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Philanthropic Pursuit

How do I draw attention to a philanthropic pursuit?

LaUra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.129.199 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

On your personal web site, but there's no place to do that kind of promotion on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to concur with FisherQueen. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about noble causes, but if it later becomes notable, and is covered in reliable sources, it can be written about later. We only write about things that have been written about in other sources. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

I just blocked Dr. Ahmed Hashi Farah (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) for making legal threats at User talk:Middayexpress, also note the attempted ownership. The threat was four days ago and they were warned. However, they have been editing since and have not retracted that threat. If, when they come back they clearly retract the threat then unblock them and please don't wait for me to see it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I left a note telling him how to get factual errors fixed in the mean time, based on {{Blocked subject}}. Second call for people with strong template-fu to help make that template more generic and easier to use. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Recall question

Now that I've regained my admin tools, I really need to setup a recall page. I've looked at Lar's recall page, and it seems quite involved but very thorough. I've put myself in the willing to be recalled category, but I'd like to know what a good process and criteria would be. My main concern is keeping vexation litigants away.

Any suggestions? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For the criteria think of the biggest vexatious cabal you're likely to cross, then add one. You can always settle for less. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't already seen Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria, you can just go there and read through a bunch of 'em and see what proposal you do or don't like, or even what aspects you like of certain ones. A few processes (e.g. Lar's) are used by many, so it's not too much work. At least, that's one of the things I did. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Has any admin on the OTR list (past or present) ever been through the process of recall (successful or not)? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest my recall criteria: User:Chillum/recall? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a bad set of criteria. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "Open to recall" is basically another way of saying "screw you" to the community. The alternative to recall is the basic standard of behaviour expected of the community. If someone points out a misuse of admin tools, pay attention to what they're saying. If someone files an RFC, pay attention to what the community says. These "recall criteria" are, in almost all cases, written in such a way as to be ridiculously restrictive. And they tend to lead to an attitude which amounts to "if you don't like what I'm doing, file a recall petition" (sometimes this is said explicitly). Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My recall criteria is more of a "screw you" to the recall system itself than a "screw you" to the community. I am always responsive to concerns about me. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of truth in what Guettarda says. Most of the recall criteria I have read amount to little more than "I'll investigate myself if enough people who have never disagreed with me about anything think I should". DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually beginning to wonder about that myself... I've read a few of the criteria and they are very restrictive. Some of them are almost impossible for someone to initiate the recall. I'm going to have to rethink my opinion on recall... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Administrators open to recall is superfluous. Anybody who becomes an administrator should have the good sense to resign if a consensus develops, such as through WP:RFC/U, that they are no longer trusted to use their sysop access. As Guettarda and DuncanHill note, recall criteria has been more often used to dodge responsibility than to enhance it. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favour of the community being able to remove admin tools, just haven't seen any admins volunteer for a meaningful way of doing it. Part of the problem is the mindset that tools are given indefinately, whoever thought that up in the first place was an idiot. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I didn't say much before as I didn't want to influence anyone one way or another over the discussion over whether I should recover my admin tools - I thought that might be a bit unfair. But admins (like myself) who contributed a lot of time and effort to Wikipedia and who didn't leave under a cloud have already proven themselves to be trusted and I see no reason why they should be forced to surrender their tools. One day they might come back, even after a few years :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)So you didn't want people to know what your attitude to being an admin was in case it influenced their opinion of whether or not you should be an admin? Hmmm. As for people coming back after a few years, fine, but expectations and standards change, policies also change and someone who has been away a long time might not be familiar with current expectations and policies. But to return to my point, the idea that "an admin is for life" undermines efforts to keep admins accountable to the community they are supposed to serve. DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, assume bad faith much? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe your choice of words was poor, that's why I used a question mark. DuncanHill (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No more poor a choice than adding a bemused "Hmmm" to the end of the question. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the future of Wikipedia Tbsdy where admins are assumed to be corrupt power mongering children. Remember 2 years ago when decent admins were given some level of credibility? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My memory might be failing me, but I don't think that was the case back then. WP:AN/I and WP:AN is still littered with the same POV-pushing, rude and intractible editors complaining that they have been poorly treated by a unspecified cabal of editors/admins who are out to get them! :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember it clearly though, people worked primarily on making an encylopedia, trolls wore little bells on their necks so we could see them coming, reason and logic always prevailed, and drama was just something you watched on TV. Ahhh, the good old days(perhaps it was just a crazy dream?). Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I put your cabal membership card in the mail yesterday. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The community can already remove admin tools. (Just some folks don't recognize it.) Simply start an WP:RFC/U, and if there is a consensus to remove tools, petition ArbCom, and it will be done. In the alternative, come to WP:AN and request a community sanction, such as Admin X has shown poor judgment and is forbidden to use sysop access. The community has the power to ban somebody, or topic ban them. Surely we have the power collectively to forbid an individual from acting as a sysop. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the AN method would get the response that "we don't have the power to do that here", unfortunately. And the very worst admins do seem to have enough friends to be able to claim "no concensus" for the RfCU method. This isn't aimed at any individual, but our "dispute resolution" methods are cumbersome, over-complicated, and unreliable. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a "recall" idea which has been tickling me for a while: copy-paste your entire RFA to some sort of subpage, and allow people to change their vote and add or remove themselves as "support" or "oppose" whenever they feel like it. If the support percentage ever drops below 60% and stays that way for a couple of weeks, resign. If it ever goes above 60% and stays that way for a couple of weeks, ask for your bit back. Continuous concensus, with little or no scope for gaming. 82.253.245.17 (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather like that - easy come, easy go, no big deal. DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice, but that's not exactly correct. RFAs really make the editor jump through hoops. That's not a bad thing, but it's certainly not "easy come". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that it would ensure that no admin would ever deal with anything controversial ever again (i.e. the Balkans, Ireland, pseudoscience, climate change, copyright abuse, disputed XfDs) for fear of mobilising enough people to push their RfA below 60% purely for doing what they were elected to do. 86.161.49.220 (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would - other editors glad to see the action would express support, and in the spirit of "adminship is no big deal", surely no admin would be too worried about losing the status to stop them doing what they believe to be in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. DuncanHill (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In a perfect world that would be true. However, Wikipedia is definitely not that :) 86.161.49.220 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As surely as no editor would ever file a frivolous recall. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to file recalls, frivolous or otherwise. If a user decides that they no longer have confidence in a particular administrator, they simply change their currently voiced "support" to "oppose". Since the expressed opinion is continuously updated, it's a useful tool for bureaucrats to accurately evaluate consensus. 82.253.245.17 (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I come to think of it, not only is there no need for filing recalls, but no need for arbcom involvement, no need for RFCs and even no need for RFAs: the community expresses its opinion, the bureaucrats judge that opinion and act accordingly. If a faction's "block opposes" outweigh the rest of the community, then so be it. If there really isn't consensus, then there really isn't. No fuss, no muss. 82.253.245.17 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can recall a single example of the community coming to the consensus that someone should not be an admin, and arbcom not quickly acting on it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out the idea above: it's more-or-less a continuous RFA, except that adminship can be lost or gained easily as the ground-swell of conscensus changes. So the RFA stress is eliminated, conscensus is permanently (instead of the RFA snapshot) evaluated and respected and adminship goes back to being "no big deal". 82.253.245.17 (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If I ever get to the point of doing an RFA, I will use the procedure in User:MBisanz/Recall. Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Write whatever criteria you think looks good. Then if it looks like those criteria will be met either change the criteria or remove them entirely. That's standard procedure.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion (which I acknowledge is unpopular) is that recall promises are typically a mechanism for passing RFA, not for getting rid of problem admins. Recall criteria can be (and have been) altered or completely disregarded post-RFA. I am unaware of a single instance of recall that resulted in a desysopping. Skinwalker (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure most are done in good faith. But then you have to come up with criteria to protect yourself from it turning into a tool for harrassment. And that's where the criteria become restrictive. Looking at Lar's criteria, any admin who's not "open to recall" is ineligible. That means that many peole are excluded simply because they don't buy into the idea of recall. Which is fine, if you're open to input via an RFC. But then recall is superfluous. Guettarda (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole concept of recall criteria falls foul of the fact that admins are not elected representatives. They're essentially some freakish combination of volunteer janitor, security guard, and teacher. If necessary, they're let go by the School Board, if they don't meet required standards. The very concept of "recall criteria", a la recall referendum, is misguided. Rd232 ^talk 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This just makes me sad. Let's all cede all authority to this "school board" and ignore community responsibilities.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a perfect metaphor, if you get into the guts of Arbcom's role/dispute resolution/community sanctions. But it's a whole lot better than the metaphor implied by recall criteria. Rd232 ^talk 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I can't think of an example of where arbcom has not quickly acted on a community consensus that someone should not be an admin. This is a bit of a non-issue. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. That plus ArbCom tends to review the evidence rather than reaching for the pitchforks and flaming torches. I thought that WP:CDA had been marked as failed / no consensus (probably the only time I have ever come to disagree with Uncle G) but I'm disappointed to see that the undead corpse has been revived at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC. I hope people will take to heart Newyorkbrad's considered objections. I cannot think of anyone more scrupulously and transparently fair than Brad, even including Jimbo. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Quite. The community sanction process (certainly AN/ANI) can often be pretty pitchforky; or perhaps one step removed - a poster in the town square where townspeople who happen by vote on someone's innocence or guilt, and appropriate sanction. That it works as well as it does on WP is a miracle; but a similar process systematically applied to the town's police would be an obvious disaster. Rd232 ^talk 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  Not a fan of the jury system? :P - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  This isn't really a jury system. It's an American Idol/Pop Idol system, which can be gamed. And it certainly doesn't have the order of a courtroom... there's no judge, bailiff or attorneys here. As Rd232 said, it's more akin to letting random passers-by vote on a sheet of paper about a criminal's guilt. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  As The Hand said, it's precisely not a jury system. The most relevant difference is perhaps the jury selection process: jury members are initially selected at random and then various selection tests designed to ensure impartiality are applied. On both counts the community process is strikingly different, and indeed many of its flaws arise from that. If we did have a jury system for the trickier AN/ANI issues - some way of randomly selecting from qualified editors, plus exclusion of any agreed to be "involved" - it might be an improvement. It would risk duplicating Arbcom, but in a very mini, simple version it could possibly work without doing so. Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  That invites the question: If ANI is such a pile of shite that admins don't want themselves subjected to it's mercurial judgments, why the hell do we prosecute ordinary editors here? Jehochman ^Brrr 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, because administrators are natural targets for pissed-off editors. I think the answer to your question is pretty self-evident. Unrelated; thank you for not using the term "begs the question" inappropriately; that drives me nuts. Tan | 39 16:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because ordinary editors don't deserve to be treated as well as admins? DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because a lot of its flaws arise from the self-selection effect, which is obviously much worse for any discussion of problems with authority figures. In a jury trial of a cop, anyone he's ever arrested is going to be excluded, no? Rd232 ^talk 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What goes on here is in the way of discretionary sanctions, which are notionally within the discretion of any uninvolved admin but where there might be a request for other eyes. Admittedly the peanut gallery can come along and start throwing shells, but I don't think that affects the outcome much. 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Jehochman has a point. Administrators are not the only natural targets, and the majority of are harder ones to take down by a few grouchy folks.--Tznkai (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We ought to be much more conservative when talking about people. If an editor or administrator has problematic behavior that cannot be resolved without extensive community discussion, then the correct venue is WP:RFC/U, not WP:ANI. At least RFC has some requirements and structure designed to prevent melee. Once RFC has been done, then it should be possible to take the matter to WP:AN if there is a broad consensus, or WP:RFAR if there is none. If RFC does not work as well as it should, let's fix it, rather than spawning alternative processes. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My phrasing "works as well as it does" was deliberately not saying that it works well. Rd232 ^talk 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Jehochman's rhetorical question, I think the problem is that for a small number of Admins, WP:AN/I is a no-win environment. They do the heavy lifting, deal with the ugly disputes (e.g., ethnic/nationalistic, pseudoscience, global warming, US politics, etc.) until burnout inevitably comes & they need to hand the bit back. Any recall process only makes this group's useful work harder. For the rest of the Admins, a process closer to what Chillum has on her/his user subpage is more than enough. Talking to the person in a reasonable manner -- or opening a thread on WP:AN/I -- should be sufficient to alert the average Admin to a problem. And if that doesn't work, then the ArbCom can't help but get involved & de-Adminning may need to follow. (And to TBSDY lives's original question, my advice is simple: don't bother with creating a policy. Just do the best you can, & if it all goes to hell, & if WikiBreaks stop relieving the stress, then give back the Admin bit.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I get a witness closer?

Resolved

 – Closed. Chick Bowen 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 2, I've managed to close all these except one that I filed and another where I'm not sure what the right answer is, in which the conversation is quite stale. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chick! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Account name too close?

I'm trying to start an account with the name NCLI, but I am not allowed to do so because it has bears resemblance to Nc11, an already registered user. Seriously?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.55.60.91 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I point you to the correct venue, I want to note that "NCLI" looks remarkably like an acronym for something such as an organization, group or company. That being said, the page you want is here, but please have a look at the memo about our username policy. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought he was doing something weird with Roman numerals like 0151 or even -151. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

Resolved

 – ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This RFC has hit the thirty day mark, if there are any admins left who can considered themselves "uninvolved" it would be good they could do a summary and close it up. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GoRight is still indef blocked. This thread seems to have brought no consensus as to any unblock. He has taken down his latest unblock request which was neither declined nor accepted, discussion will carry on at his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be engaged in a lot of disputes at the moment, and his engagement seems to follow a repeated pattern of pushing minority viewpoints, supporting people sanctioned for various reasons, and endless argumentation long after a consensus has emerged. I can see two things that might come of this:

• Some community sanction enjoining him form becoming engaged in other people's battles.
• A trip to WP:RFAR.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Guy (Help!) 09:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The most recent General Sanction. Violation of agreements post-block/discussion and consensus are more easily dealt with that fresh issues. Perhaps deal with the user for violating the sanctions already imposed rather than requesting more, if it's appropriate. I see he is already violating promises he made post blocking? SGGH ^ping! 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In good faith; seeing if there are any remaining previously uninvolved editors/admins who can see if there is disruption, or if parties of contrasting viewpoints are getting oversensitive over the actions of others? It may be that an RfC might be more appropriate for getting views. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I reckon we're running short of active admins he's not dragged into one dispute or another. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the wikilawyering on display at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/GoRight_on_Pcarbonn is exactly the sort of thing that Viridae's indefinite block 0f 01/04-01/06 was intended to prevent. GoRight was given a last chance, and that's been blown. I think an indefinite block would be the best solution here. GoRight has a history [89] of engaging in battles, tendentious editing, and wikilawyering to the detriment of the project. I have no idea why GoRight chose to involve themselves in the Pcarbonn situation. Editors with histories of blocks or restrictions for disruption should not be tolerated when they muddle community discussions by backing each other up. I feel that I've been wrongly sanctioned, so I'm going to try to disrupt the placement of sanctions against anybody else is a form of WP:POINT. Does any uninvolved administrator or editor object to reinstating Viridae's block? Jehochman ^Brrr 14:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly believe that I have only been raising valid issues and points in the actions I have raised since I was unblocked. If my actions were inappropriate I would request a detailed explanation including some diffs of how this is the case. Regarding Viridae's previous block, I would suggest that it be left to Viridae to determine whether I have violated my agreement with him.

I do object to Jehochman attempting to put words into my mouth in this matter (i.e. I feel that I've been wrongly sanctioned, so I'm going to try to disrupt the placement of sanctions against anybody else which I have never claimed or stated in any way).

I will also observe the JzG seems to be attempting to ban everyone that has ever disagreed with him. Something that the community might want to take note of. I leave it to you to do what you think is best in that regards. --GoRight (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Any disruptive editor may claim that they are raising valid points. When the community at large does not agree, the editor must change, or risk being excluded. I never quoted you; I summarized your actions, which are more significant than your statements. You are acting in a way that creates the strong appearance that you're out to prevent sanctions on other disruptive editors, especially those who agree with your anti-established-science POV. This is not at all helpful behavior. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"I never quoted you; I summarized your actions, which are more significant than your statements." - No, you actually imputed motive and intent to my actions which is what I object to. I object because they are not even close to my reasons for speaking up for Pcarbonn. I would have thought my reasons were obvious given my history, but just to clarify here let me briefly explain for those who may not be familiar with my history.

I object to efforts to completely ban minority points of view from Wikipedia as a matter of convenience for the majority. WP:NPOV assumes and relies upon having a minority group around to push back on the majority to keep the NPOV line where it belongs. JzG and his supporters are merely trying to ban the POV that Cold Fusion has some merit based on recent experiments and publications despite the historical mainstream view. Pcarbonn is a visible proponent of that POV and this effort to exclude him is, IMHO, driven based more on his POV than on his specific behaviors. This is why I am asking that the detailed evidence be examined because that is the only way to demonstrate the broad brush which is being applied by JzG.

I consider attempts such as this to ban entire points of view to be wrong and so I choose to speak out against that wrong. If that is considered disruptive, then I guess I am guilty. --GoRight (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's typical WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. This is not a tug-of-war between proponents and opponents of a given POV. We expect all editors to strive for NPOV. In particular, if a minority POV editor is unable to recognize due weight, he can become disruptive. It's not the job of majority POV editors to over and over and over again restore proper balance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To recognize that multiple points of view exist and that some enjoy a majority and others are relegated to a minority is not indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, it is indicative of reality. When those points of view are in conflict on a contentious topic it is unrealistic to expect that there will be no friction. There will be. But it is not in the best interests of the project to eliminate that friction by wholesale removing all editors who hold or champion the minority points of view. Doing so risks making Wikipedia a mouthpiece for the majority point of view rather than the neutral point of view. --GoRight (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight had an opinion about the Pcarbonn situation and he expressed it. Since when we are punishing editors for having an opion?  Dr. Loosmark  14:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Since they start excessively wikilawyering, and being disruptive. With that said, I have no comment on the merits of any block. Ale_Jrb^talk 14:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an experiment in unrestricted free speech. I was just expressing my opinion is a tautology that any editor can claim at any time to justify any post. When GoRight posts a long screed of irrelevant material or rules lawyering in an apparent effort to derail imposition of community sanctions, that is not acceptable. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems problematic. How can one be accused of an "effort to derail imposition of community sanctions"? GoRight is part of the community, is he not? If the idea around sanctions is reaching a community consensus (and it is), then everyone's views must be respected in the process of reaching that consensus. JPatterson (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is here is how to define "irrelevant". Since you and GoRight had an exactly opposite opinion on the Pcarbonn situation I find it a bit bizarre that now you call the points he made "irrelevant material".  Dr. Loosmark  14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

←The current procedural disruption by GoRight seems to be a continuation of his "mock" mentorship of Abd and all the disruption surrounding that. GoRight seems to be gaming the system and wasting a lot of other users' time. MastCell has explained to GoRight why the decision on Pcarbonn represents consensus.[90] If GoRight does not understand what consensus means and why points that have already been discussed at length cannot be endlessly revisited and dissected in a legalistic way, perhaps wikipedia is not the place for him. Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to my good friend Mathsci, this issue was never "discussed at length" and THAT is the problem. Bannings should be serious matters and they deserve serious debate. --GoRight (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read what MastCell wrote. You are simply wasting time here at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read what he wrote, and replied to his reply. I am wasting no one's time, BTW. Just ignore me if you don't think a more thorough review of JzG's assertions is warranted. The same is true of everyone else calling for my head here. If I attract no additional support with my comments they will simply be archived into oblivion with no harm done. Or is that somehow incorrect? --GoRight (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, I am inclined to agree with Guy. Perhaps a community topic ban from any dispute resolution proceedings to which GoRight is not a party, including all discussions about the sanctions of other editors, would help?  Sandstein  16:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

MastCell's well reasoned and constructive admonition occurred after GoRight's PCarbon defense on which this current request for action is based. GoRight would do well to follow his advice. We would do well to give him the chance to do soJPatterson (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point there is no "community consensus" for a topic ban.  Dr. Loosmark  16:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. You and GoRight are voicing your own personal opinions, which seem to be against consensus. ArbCom examined in detail Pcarbonn's editing patterns and his advocacy. These have not changed since his return from the one year ban. There is no need endlessly to repeat the arguments given in the old ArbCom case, unless of course the intention is to wear other users out. Mathsci (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

True, I am voicing my personal opinion, whois opinion are you voicing? Anyway I think you misunderstood my comment, what i meant is that I am totally against a "community topic ban from any dispute resolution proceedings for GoRight" as proposed by Sandstein above. Pcarbonn ban is another matter (for the record I don't support that one either).  Dr. Loosmark  17:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom was elected to decide things like this and I would agree that what was decided by them in great detail one year ago has not changed. In that particular case, it does not benefit the articles to have a confirmed advocate like Pcarbonn editing.

As for GoRight, I think he is gaming the system far too much and wasting too many people's time. If he were to calm down, this would solve many problems and this kind of discussion would not be necessary. However, every few days some new bone of contention arises with the attendant drama spread across several wikipedia pages. I don't think that this can continue since it seems quite counter-productive. Mathsci (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• The campaigning to block editors who have opinions that don't comport with majority views here is dismaying. Jehochman has been particularly active in silencing people. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As has [JzG] Pot, kettle, black. JPatterson (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the first half of CoM's statement adds a great deal (although it could use a bit less assertion and a bit more reasoning, but your mileage may vary) the second on the other hand, is a personal broadside. I'd like a bit more than an instance or two of nosy behavior and stubbornness before a MYOB topic ban. RFC/U may be a better angle.--Tznkai (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As these issues always seem to involve interactions with science topics (cold fusion, global warming etc) would it be simpler to ban GoRight from the general topic area of science articles and issues directly connected with them? It seems to me that a ban on "becoming engaged in other people's battles" is too vaguely defined. I think a ban in the terms that Jehochman has proposed would be unworkable in practice and too easy to game. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless further evidence is forthcoming about how "Viridae's indefinite block 0f 01/04-01/06" is relevant, the most plausible outcome from this discussion would seem to be either dropping the matter or pursuing an WP:RFC/U (if there is a problem pattern). GoRight's lengthy disagreement with the Pcarbonn conclusion seem to have more to do with differences of framing of the issue than anything else; the difference summed up with the remark "this is not Rfar part 2". Neither position is fundamentally unreasonable, but only one has consensus. But it's not obvious why that disagreement should lead to sanction, especially just looking at this single instance. Rd232 ^talk 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To enumerate the complaints here: GoRight is allegedly gaming the system, wikilawyering, and revisiting issues that already have consensus. GoRight is a verbose guy that tends to rub people the wrong way, which is why this is far from the first community discussion about him. But being annoying or verbose when having good faith discussions about a community ban doesn't seem like a reason to be banned himself unless his behavior is obviously disruptive for no good reason. Can someone provide diffs of the allegedly disruptive behavior? Oren0 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Guy, I think you need to follow the WP:RFC/U to WP:RFAR pathway to get your concerns resolved. This thread is not heading toward any sort of consensus. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a chat with a couple of people and see if we can think of ways to avoid it, since I think it would end up as a shit fight. As to this thread, feel free to archive it, you're right it's going nowhere good. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be exactly the type of behaviour I blocked him to prevent last time. (though noone in this mess is lilly white) Viridae^Talk 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to restore your block. A knot needs to be unraveled one thread at a time. Start with the most disruptive editor and work your way down the list until a proper editing environment is restored. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, in my defense I had already agreed to drop the issue once it was closed by a neutral voice yesterday (although I have responded to posts on the subpage). This thread today was NOT started by me. --GoRight (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you be willing to exclusively edit non-controversial topics for a while? The best thing you could do to help the climate change controversy would be to walk away. If "the other side" then runs amok, that would establish beyond any doubt the need to restrict or ban them, a result you are unlikely to ever achieve through your present course of actions. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(to Jehochman - and Viridae) I really am not sure that restoring the block is appropriate, since the taint of silence the critics, and then claim unanimous support will remain. I was considering whether imposing WP:AGF on GoRight might be an option - that they are to assume that actions that they disagree with have the consensus required and that after posting their objections they should not pursue the matter. GoRight is not permitted to take the matter to any other venue, may not refer to it in other matters or subsequently (unless their objection is addressed in such a way to invite response by a concerned party). This allows them to post their comments, once, and for the rest of the community to decide if there is any value in the content or that it should be ignored. Thoughts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The locus here (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) appears to be conduct matters concerning the editors of science articles. Would a ban on commenting on that area work? I don't think it's necessary to lose GoRight's voice on content or ban him from editing science articles or participating in content disputes. He only seems to go overboard on conduct matters. --TS 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I appreciate your intent here, but the proposed result would be similar to what JzG wants to achieve on Cold Fusion ... eliminating the friction by eliminating one side of the debate (and no I do not constitute the whole of the other side of the climate change debate). For this reason this would become a self-fulfilling prophecy in some sense with a predictable outcome.

The community needs to decide if it favors WP:NPOV over convenience on controversial topics (and not just climate change as the Cold Fusion topic illustrates as well). If they favor WP:NPOV then editors such as myself must be allowed to participate and to make full use of the policies and procedures that are available. If they merely favor convenience then I guess you can block me. It's really your collective choice.

I have begun to divert my attention in a constructive manner by undertaking recent change patrol. I am still learning the ropes and my WP:GNOME credentials are still on order, but I have started already. I do not agree to be silent, but I do agree to at least offset my cost (as you seem to see it) with some constructive benefit paid back to the community. --GoRight (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a favorable development. The way I see it, those who disengage from this conflict around climate change will come out with no sanctions, and those who refuse to disengage from battle will get sanctioned in the arbitration case that is almost inevitable. The smart editors won't be there when the hammer falls. Jehochman ^Brrr 23:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather go with community sanctions for the reasons LHVU outlined above. Viridae^Talk 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Guy makes a claim without diffs. GoRight was previously blocked without diffs. This talk looks like a big diff for harassing GoRight to prevent NPOV progress. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And your failure to provide diffs that substantiate the extraordinary claim that GoRight is being targeted in an attempt to undercut fundamental progress is what? At most, one can accuse of Guy of making bald assertions that can in fact, be substantiated or not. What you've presented here is purely speculative.--Tznkai (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This recent intervention by GoRight on User talk:Marknutley indicates that even in the middle of a discussion of his recent conduct GoRight is prepared to adopt very nasty tactics, making a very serious allegation against an uninvolved admin. I think there is an unanswerable case for strong community sanctions here. --TS 08:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Supplement to the above: specific diffs, for the diff-oriented.[91][92] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris, I've tried being friendly with GoRight,[93] but he's just not listening. My block finger is getting that itchy feeling. Shall we get evil and vote on the merits of a block, or should we start an WP:RFC/U, or go straight to WP:RFAR? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My working hypothesis for some time has been that GoRight very much wants an arbcom case on global warming. A better solution in my view would be for the admin corps to "grow a pair," to use the common phrase, and enforce existing policy as reiterated by the general sanctions on climate change that recently were put into place. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but personally I'm getting tired of the endless drama here. It's obvious by now that there's no consensus on what, if anything, should be done here. An RfC/U would just prolong the agony and provide yet more oppotunities for grandstanding by all sides. The latest issues would probably not be caught by the existing climate change probation, so that is not a panacea either. My advice: since the community plainly hasn't been able to resolve this satisfactorily, take it to RFAR, file a narrowly focused case specifically concerning GoRight and let the ArbCom deal with it. In short, please take this somewhere where it will be resolved rather than grinding on as a perpetual and very tiresome drama-fest. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the soapboxing and ultimate lack of resolution which would emerge from an RfC/U would benefit the community. Similarly, based on GoRight's conduct in the Abd arbitration case, I doubt that an arbitration would be helpful either. Allowing the status quo to stand for the couple of months it will take to use these processes is...suboptimal. (The lone worthwhile effect of that ongoing arbitration process is that it sucked the time and attention of some disruptive editors over to RfAr and away from article space, but I don't think we should rely on that as a general practice.) Both processes are, frankly, time-consuming and highly unpleasant drama magnets — though perhaps the new ArbCom isn't yet as burnt out and will engage in more effective clerking and case management than the last one did.

As Boris aptly notes, we already have a community-endorsed framework for efficiently and effectively dealing with tendentious, unproductive, and persistently uncollegial conduct on climate change articles. The community has clearly stated its expectations here, and all that is required is suitable admin enforcement. (That said, I am well aware of GoRight's persistent habit of claiming that admins are 'involved' and unable to caution or sanction him or his associates, and I sympathize with admins who might wish to avoid the hassle.) If GoRight wishes to challenge any sanctions imposed under the extant probation, then he is welcome to appeal to ArbCom; there is no need for administrators to, effectively, ask permission of ArbCom to use powers already granted them by the probation. It is worth noting that a previous iteration of a climate change RfAr was pre-empted by the establishment of the climate change probation; I would tend to argue that in the absence of a stated opinion to the contrary, the rejection of that RfAr constitutes a de facto endorsement of the probation by the ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My reading of their comments suggested to me that it was rather more explicit than that; I think they actively encouraged us to try and make it work. It's very similar to the outcome imposed by other arbitration cases, after all, and in cases where there is long-standing disagreement outside Wikipedia it's hard to see what other mechanism will effectively manage the battle when it is inevitably brought here. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

yes. I agree. The Arbs firmly endorsed the probation and battelground and TE editing like GoRight's has not place here. They really must stop before they get reblocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight Blocked

I have blocked GoRight (talk · contribs) indefinitely again. For myself, I do not see any need for more interminable fisking noticeboard threads like this one or this one, but editors are generally free to spend their time as it pleases them. Please do not lift this block absent robust discussion here or with me. I do not anticipate being unavailable for more than a day or so for the foreseeable future, and my email is enabled. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be lying if I said I was either surprised or regretful. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Um, can you point to a specific action edit or comment, preferably more than one, since the above discussion started that precipitated this block? I am really not going to get into a debate here, but there was no consensus for a indef block - possibly a narrow one against? - and other methods of limiting the disruption were ongoing, albeit sluggishly. Defaulting to the one sanction that had been disregarded because there is an apparent lack of progress on the alternatives is not sustainable, in my opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• 2/0 has explained the reasons at User talk:GoRight#Blocked (2). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think it would be reasonable to expect LHVU to have done due diligence by reading the block notice on GR's talk page before bposting here William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I had. The question remains, what has GoRight done subsequent to the discussion above - where consensus appears to be against a block? To make it simpler, why has 2/0 gone against readily apparent consensus? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

LHVU raises a valid point - there is not a consensus here for a block. There was, however, a consensus that something would be needed sooner rather than later. I started preparing this sanction because GoRight had reached my threshold for snide condescension, apparent preference for argumentative disputation at the expense of collaborative discussion, grandstanding and playing the martyr, and general just plain rudeness and lack of consideration for the time, effort, and feelings of other volunteers in what of their contributions I read in the topic area of climate change. It was only in the course of assuring myself that I would not be acting on a biased subset of information that I found the Pcarbonn banning issue (I have not edited Cold fusion for quite some time), but the pattern is familiar like an old sock left in the rain. I hasten to reiterate that the diffs provided in the blocking rationale are, as stated, merely a sample to illustrate the range of problematic behaviours this editor exhibits. Call it skipping straight to the phase wherein is argued that, because a steel wire cannot support even a single heavy thespian, the Golden Gate bridge is clearly a figment of imagination phase of the proceedings, omitting the your description is not detailed enough phase. I left off encourages and abets disruption from others, especially new editors, as this behaviour does not seem to have come up in the last week (some questionable and not necessarily productive advice, though). You may be assured that I examined the context of each of the examples provided. In a number of cases they are merely making things worse and are not the first one to disrupt or distract from the focus of a particular thread. This is still disruptive, and the percentage of cases where GoRight's involvement has the apparent effect of actually hastening amicable resolution or even of fully exploring the available solution space is vanishingly small.

The level of disingenuousness and the obdurate refusal to get the point evinced in GoRight's block appeal do not give me cause to doubt my original analysis. I would not stand in the way of a robust consensus that a topic ban from climate change, broadly construed, or some similar sanction would be a better solution, but the disruption does not appear to be limited to a single topic area. In the interests of allowing GoRight to participate, such a discussion should probably be undertaken at their talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that something needs doing to limit the disruption created by GoRight's tenacious (mendacious, even) argumentative style - which is why I proposed above that they be restricted to posting a single "against consensus" comment in discussions where they hold the minority view. It is also unfortunate that the discussion toward agreeing the type of restriction had petered out, since no proposed solution was gaining sufficient traction. My concern is that an indef block without a continuing discussion toward a consensus, without recent examples of continuing behaviour sufficient of itself to draw the sanction, and one that appears to contradict the consensus previously formed, is itself going to be controversial - sufficient even that an inclined sysop could reverse it procedurally. Since 2/0 has given their rationale, then it beholds us to support or otherwise (and quickly!) so that it might not be overturned on a technicality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Noting for the record that 'on a technicality' is never a valid reason to undo another editor's (or admin's) actions. If one cannot present a cogent argument which justifies a course of action in terms of how it will benefit the project, one should not take that action. Period. Wikipedia is neither a court of law nor a mindless bureaucracy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is a valid reason; if policy is misapplied or misinterpreted, in good faith, then that action may be undone immediately (per WP:BRD and WP:WHEEL) to restore the status quo - even if the action is apparently the right result, and subsequently affirmed. Such an revert, the undoing of a good faith and possibly beneficial action because it did not follow policy, is most surely on a technicality. I am quite surprised that this is an issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea, but please don't try it. That way madness lies. If somebody does the right thing, don't ask him to come back to dot the eyes and cross the tees. --TS 00:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I retaliated, pre-emptively. 2/0 could have invoked WP:IAR, but didn't. At least there is only this discussion about the block, and everthing else is about the appropriate subject. I got it right... (ish). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support pending GoRight agreeing to a restriction that addresses the concerns raised regarding tendacious opposition and commentary where there is an existing consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the issues raised in the original section. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Months ago, after Jed (surname withhold) was banned from Cold fusion, GoRight raised all of sort of technicalities to contest the ban, saying that Jed was being treated unfairly, etc. GoRight never addresed the actual reason for the ban: that Jed was an unrepentant POV pusher who had posted that he came back to wikipedia just to annoy us and also posted that he had no intention of helping to write the article (yeah, Jed actually wrote that, no, I'm not going to go through 35 pages of archives to locate the diff). I see that during all this time GoRight has been doing the same in other topics, raising procedural points with no regard to what actually improves the encyclopedia and its content. This is not one isolated obfuscation over one issue on an otherwise good contributor, this is a long term behaviour of disruption. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hummmm, all the opposses here are from banned people or from people who are or have been in danger of getting banned? Are they opposing because they have looked at the merits of the case and found them lacking, or because they are afraid that they might one day find themselves in the same place? Am I supporting because I have looked at the merits of the case or because he managed to really really pissed me off? Nope, it's because he tried to get in the way of a clear community ban, not by stating his own viewpoint, but by raising all sort of procedural objections and off-topic stuff. He has made an offer to restrict himself at some certain discussions [94] but it's too narrow for my liking. In the cold fusion case he made lots of noise at my user talk page, at the article's talk page and the arbcom case on cold fusion, and he kept restoring edits of editors while he was still disputing the ban that had already been laid on them. This offer is in the right path, but it's still too narrow for my liking. Specifically, in his offer doesn't address any of the misbehaviour pointed out in User_talk:GoRight#Blocked_.282.29, snd he's not even acknowledging any misbehaviour, and he's not making any promise that he won't waste again the time of other editors, or make more sarcastic remarks, or wikilawyer, etc. Pcarbonn's ban discussion was just the straw that broke the camel's back, and his offer only covers this narrow area. GoRight needs to make a meaningful promise that he will stop wasting other editor's time and that he will behave way more civilly and much less sarcastically, or we'll just be back here in a short time. He can remain blocked until he makes the adequate promise. Prior experience has taught me that, once he is unblocked, he will claim that he didn't promise X or Y and that this means that he can keep doing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And now he makes veiled threats about bad things happening to other editors if things don't go to his convenience [95] "(...) I am under no obligation to offer anything and am still free to appeal this block at arbcom. That, however, could be a roll of the dice for all involved so is not a matter to be taken lightly. (...)" and when I point it out he dismisses my comment as pointy and unhelpful [96]...... --Enric Naval (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed GoRight maintains faith in others and wiki principles in the face of those who chose to ignore them with prejudiced attack. An indefinite block is abusive for an editor who openly discusses concerns and has shown productive reform for good Wikipedia ways. The block itself is not helping wiki and is creating a disruption, it should be removed and folks should move on.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, though not surprised. GoRight should know by now that "unrepentant POV pushers" are only allowed on the "good" side of a contentious topic. Perhaps, instead of altering behavior, GoRight should instead alter his POV, flip sides to the other side of the GW debate, and within a month I'm sure he'd be lauded as a gallant defender of the wiki. ATren (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Expressing views in a AN/I process should not be actionable. Also, since consensus was not reached above, this block seems unwarranted. JPatterson (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't know why we're listing these opinions under bullet points, but obviously GoRight should be required to conform to community norms before he is unblock him. Oh wait, didn't he agree to do that when he was indefinitely blocked by another administrator just a couple of weeks ago? How many last chances does he get? --TS 00:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't help but think of being arrested for "resisting arrest" - I once told 2/0 that he is too biased to be overseeing the global warming related articles, and this selective vision of his even more proof of that statement. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support (but why are we !voting anyway?). Viridae blocked GoRight indefinitely not long ago because of exactly the same problems. At some point you just have to say "enough is enough" and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Indefinite is not permanent: at this point, the difference between "indefblock+request to 'agreeing to a restriction that addresses the concerns raised regarding tendacious opposition and commentary where there is an existing consensus'" (as LVHU puts it) and the "community sanctions" previously discussed, is not that great. There is a long-term pattern of problematic behaviour, and at this point the editor in question needs to muster enough self-awareness and self-control to agree not to continue in the same vein, and then to stick to that promise reasonably well. Rd232 ^talk 01:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Second ATren. This whole thing has the very ugly appearance of gang-style suppression of opposing viewpoints. It appears to me that GR's recent behaviour, probably beginning with the setup of our new cowboy climate change court, has indeed been less than perfect, but GR has endured a great deal of bullying in the past to get to this point, and he has further demonstrated that he is able to restrain himself once he calms down. GR is a valuable editor here, just as an opposition is a valuable component of a democratic parliament. An indefinite block is proposed without even an appeal to ArbComm??? C'mon guys... I respectfully suggest to the admins involved here: calm down, and reconsider. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's not about what he thinks, it's about what he does, which is to waste vast amounts of people's time. Looking at his talk page he seems to be prepared to accept a restriction on fisking, whihc may be an acceptable resolution. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW... ah, Opposed? I think that the block should be (preferably self-)overturned. I can understand and sympathize with the apparent frustrations with excessive process here, but short circuiting that by taking action like this is even worse. I should also note that I wouldn't have bothered with this, but I found some of GoRight's point son his own talk page to be quite persuasive. There's obviously some interpersonal issues mixed in with all of this as well, which should hardly be surprising considering the depth and breadth of the ongoing content dispute(s) which are tied to all of this. That actually makes it more important not to make hasty personal decisions on the issue, in the sort of governance environment here at en.wiki. There's obviously plenty of interest surrounding all of this, so unblock and work the issues out (succinct answer: blocking isn't for punishment)
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 08:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  Keeping GR from wasting other peoples time with wikilawyering and not getting it is clearly preventative, not punitive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  I don't doubt that you believe that, but I've gotta tell you (and 2/0) that this appears to be punitive. Like I said above, I fully expect that there are many of you involved in this who are frustrated. It's easy to loose site of perspective when that happens. All I'm saying is that, from my perspective, and with quite limited involvement in any of this, that the appearances don't currently look to great here.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 08:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose, per what Atren said above. --mark nutley (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Trying to see both sides of this, I don't think I can accept that GoRight's style of communication is disruptive in itself. I say this largely because I notice that quite a few on the other side of this debate are themselves quite abrupt, yet no disruption seems to be noted. The concern is that this suggests a heckler's veto, where the disruption is created not by GoRight but those responding. What bothers me is also that, while I'd like to see even-handed treatment, I know I couldn't bring myself to start pushing for sanctions against every impolite user in this area. One recent example I've seen is User:Ratel. I don't know this editor and as such am reluctant to make an example of them, but see very recently this, this, this, this, this. Why is this not a concern? Basically because no one is complaining. I gather that what concerns editors about GoRight is not chiefly his style of communication, but that he's seen as a POV pusher of some sort. What does this mean? Perhaps that he spends too much time disputing and not enough time building. In that case the tone he adopts could play a role, and then perhaps at some point there could be sanctions, with encouragement that he become involved in content building. I'm just not convinced: I think to block someone without examining context should require that the users' battles are without any merit at all. Otherwise, that's why we have dispute resolution. Defending bad editors should most certainly not be a cause for banning, even if it is a cause for ignoring. Either way I don't understand why more than a topic ban has been proposed, and I don't understand the trend to require consensus not to have a community ban. Mackan79 (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  You've hit part of the problem here, but it goes further. For quite a while, there has been uneven treatment of the skeptic POV on climate change articles. You raised Ratel - he has an unquestioned POV on this debate, and he pushes it regularly and forcefully, often uncivilly. But nobody sanctions him, because he's on the "good" side of the debate. I can point out half a dozen others on these pages who have routinely behaved worse than GoRight, in support of the AGW POV, and they never get sanctioned.

  So, the reasonable editor may ask, why don't editors report these abuses on the pro-GW side? Answer: we do. But it goes nowhere, because tendentious activity on the pro-GW side is viewed as defending the wiki against those bad old global warming deniers. Never mind that many of the complaints only tangentially involve the science -- my involvement has been strictly on GW-related BLPs -- we all get painted with the same brush. When we raise issues formally, we get shot down - "wikilawyering" is usually the charge.

  It comes down to this, then: opposing POVs are welcome here, as long as they keep quiet and let the "good" POV dictate the decisions. If they edit war against the "good" POV editors, they're blocked. If they complain formally, they're topic banned for disruptive "wikilawyering". They have one option: sit back and accept whatever the "good" POV pushers decide.

  (and for what it's worth, I am completely uninterested in the GW debate) ATren (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. As I said earlier, elsewhere, this has been going on for years. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with LHVU, TS (particularly) and Stephan. Mackan79, I think, is wrong, and has failed to follow GR's contributions thouroughly, or even understand the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If I've misunderstood the problem, I've done my best to lay out what it could be. It seems that others refer to a problem without clearly saying what it is. To indefinitely block someone, it's my strong opinion that someone should be able to articulate what he is doing wrong. This should be the case for his sake, for those reviewing, and for those trying to figure out what it means for them. Mackan79 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support GoRight is a pebble in the shoe for too many serious editors. To Mackan79 above, I apologize if my interpersonal skills are lacking. I blame my parents. ► RATEL ◄ 12:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• By the way GoRight has advertised this bulleted list of comments as a "vote" on his user talk page and predictably all his fans are coming here. I want all administrators to be absolutely clear, that this editor has been indefinitely blocked twice in two weeks, and was unblocked the first time after giving assurances which he then proceeded to blatantly break within days of being unblocked. --TS 12:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Draconian punishments do not work, and the appearance here is that of people who, indeed, have been more concerned with GoRight's positions as an editor, rather than GoRight's actions here. Collect (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• How did this become a vote? I thought that these discussions were supposed to consider the merits of the case — not be a vote carried out at the explicit direction of the blocked individual. I would hope that no administrator mistakenly overturns this block on the basis of a flash mob. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• comment by User:Abd made in circumvention of Arbcom restriction removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Good — Mark this as resolved. 2/0 has made an excellent rationale on utalk:GR and any who've missed it, should go find it. GR:WP:Standard offer. Consider asking to be allowed to SUL and go do something useful for 6 months. If he militates from his talk page, lock him off it. Jack Merridew 16:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Good block an interminable time-sink of a POV pusher that refuses to modify behavior over a long span of time, warnings and blocks? This isn't about punishing that editor. It's about relieving editors who behave themselves from endless tendentiousness and pseud-science advocacy with a political bent. Standard offer.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue was never going to be resolved by a vote, and listing opinions in bullet points has only encouraged GoRight to describe this discussion as a vote and to send people here to vote (or "!vote" as he so quaintly puts it).

At issue here is an editor who has made a career of engaging in disputes in an unproductive and timewasting way. This culminated in Viridae blocking him indefinitely on January 4th, two weeks ago today. GoRight was unblocked when he promised to "be more constructive". His first edits after coming from the block were not promising: disingenuous wrangling, participation in an edit war, not one but two accusations of stalking and harassment. But he seemed to settle down later that day, January 7th. However, this improvement didn't last, and now he's been indefinitely blocked by an entirely separate administrator, 2over0, for pretty much the same kind of timewasting behavior and corrosive accusations of bad faith.

Endorsed by LessHeard vanU and several other administrators, 2/0 has proposed that we consider a proper sanction under which GoRight might be able to edit in a non-disruptive manner. And this is where we stand. No amount of voting and finger-pointing will change that. We should hold a sober and Wikipedia-like discussion about this serious problem, not line up in partisan groups for and against. Not to put down bullet-points of "votes" or even "!votes", whatever those might be, not to make vague adumbrations at shady Cabals out to get an innocent editor simply because of his unpopular views, but to recognise that there is a problem and it must be resolved here. --TS 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, per ATRen & others upthread. The issue appears to be other editors offended by GR's sometimes-abrasive style. He is a valuable & committed editor, and it's a mistake to sanction or ban based on personality and ideology. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have an abrasive style too, and I have managed to stay unblocked. The reasons for the block were explained at User_talk:GoRight#Blocked_.282.29, and being abrasive has nothing to do with this. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I should note that I am a global warming skeptic. If I am not mistaken, this mean that GoRight and I share the same POV. If I were trying to promote my own POV then I would be supporting an unblock of GoRight. So please stop claiming that "they" are just trying to suppress editors with a certain POV, or that editors with a given POV are given more leniency. GoRight has a behaviour problem, and Atren's comment is wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so where have you edited in support of your skeptic POV on the GW pages? I don't recall any edits on these pages, pro or con, so unless I've missed something, your block avoidance is completely irrelevant to my comment. Feel free to prove me wrong with diffs demonstrating where you've opposed the currently enforced POV on the GW pages. ATren (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking an editor whether he has pushed his point of view in his Wikipedia editing? --TS 20:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tony, as shocked as you appear to be, POV pushing occurs on these pages and has been occurring for years. That's why, for example, skeptic bios have tenuous links to Exxon and other boogeymen, sourced to partisan organizations and blogs. I can remember one prominent pro-GW editor who edit-warred to include 40-year old life-on-Mars speculation in a skeptic's BLP, with the explicitly stated goal that he wanted to embarrass that skeptic. You are more than welcome to blind your eyes and scream "lalala", but it doesn't change the reality.

Now as to my question to Enric, I specifically asked if he edited in a way that would support his skeptic POV; that may include, for example, removing such blog-sourced criticisms from bios, or some similar action that opposes the pro-GW POV but which is fully in line with Wikipedia policy. Why is such a question taboo? He's the one asserting a position, that my point was invalid because HE wasn't blocked; I simply asked if he'd ever edited the GW pages in opposition to the prevailing POV there.

So, Eric, will you please answer this simple question? ATren (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have never edited the GW articles because I have a very strong opinion on the topic and I don't want my blood pressure to rise too much. Aka, I think that the IPCC is a bunch of clueless politically-correct wankers, the hockey stick graph is a bunch of bull that has been proven wrong, Greenpeace ought to go do something that is actually useful for the planet like saving whales, instead of peddling science that is useless for the future of the planet because it's so flawed, computer models can't make any accurate prediction, WMC is 100% wrong in any scientific issue related to GW, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. I have edited one or two articles in the fringes of GW topics, but I have purposefully avoided the main articles because of my strong opinion. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then your example is in no way applicable to my point, which is that those who edit in opposition to the current POV on the GW articles have no recourse but to accept that which is dictated by the other side. If they report bad behavior, they're wikilawyering; if they respond in kind, they're topic banned. Acceptance of the prevailing POV is the only option, even if it is skewed towards the proponent side. ATren (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Atren, you are mixing my statements a bit..... I'll restate by separate:

• Tillman said that GoRight was blocked for being abrasive, and I am proof that editors don't get blocked just because of being abrasive. The [User_talk:GoRight#Blocked_.282.29 block statement] has the actual reasons for the block. Being abrasive was not one of the reasons for the block.
• I'm asking that GoRight is blocked in spite of sharing his POV, thus falsifying your statement that "unrepentant POV pushers" are allowed in the "good" side of a topic. For me GoRight is already in the "good" side. My support to GoRight's block has nothing to do with him having one POV or another, it's all about his disruptive continuous unrepentant behaviour. Idem for your other statement, I am one of those "bad old global warming deniers" and I am against the "good" POV, I am not a "good" POV pusher, yet I am asking for GoRight's block. You are painting this a black and white dispute with a group of editors sharing a certain POV trying to silence the editors with the opposite POV. If such is the case, then why a person with my POV is in that side of the dispute? If the situation you are painting was correct, then I would have to be shouting against the oppresion of the GW cabal. Yet here I am, asking that a GW eskeptic like me is getting blocked. In short: this is not, and never was, an attempt to silence any POV. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Enric, I never said that others couldn't have reasons to ban GoRight -- in fact, didn't you and GoRight disagree extensively on Cold Fusion, and wouldn't that give you a reason to want GoRight banned independently of his stance on the debate? In any case, my argument includes GoRight but is not specific to GoRight; I've seen other editors on those pages who were either baited into blockable misbehavior, or charged with wikilawyering for raising legitimate issues. Look at the next section on this page, where JPatterson got similar treatment. GoRight is one data point of many. ATren (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You should apply Occam's razor to your theory and realize that GoRight has given plenty of reasons for getting himself blocked, and that those reasons have nothing to do with complicated theories on "good" POV pushers.

P.D.: this would mean that patterson's is a separate case with its own circumstances, that the issues raised by those editors are less legitimate than you think them to be, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Far far too often in the above the "skeptic side" (which includes ATren, despite his protestations to the contrary) have asserted bias in the GW articles, POV, etc. They are wrong. The GW articles are almost entirely NPOV; within the scientific articles they lean somewhat too much towards including minor skeptic talking points, but we are indulgent. The reason they survive as they are is not due to a shadowy cabal of "warmists" but because they largely reflect the scientific view of the subject, so their content is defensible and defended. And since I've just been accused of being a shill for the coal industry [97] I'm obviously not biased William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a GW skeptic. You, however, are clearly a proponent. ATren (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I, and I suspect everyone else, will judge you by your edits, not your protestations. It is amusing, however, that you felt entirely free to question EN's assertion that he was a skeptic, but object strongly when anyone questions your own declared balance. RC is, of course, neutral on the science; but as that says, I'm not a member of RC any more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote to EN - I never questioned whether he was a skeptic, only whether he edited the GW pages. Please strike your misinterpretation. As for RC, if you are no longer a member, why are you still on the contributors' page? And of course, even if you're not a current member, you were a member -- if a former member of a skeptic blog started editing here, would you consider him neutral? Even if he'd quit more than 2 years ago? I don't think so.

As for my supposed "skepticism" - there are two possible reasons why you would have this image of me: either (1) I really am a skeptic, or (2) you are so involved in this topic that you look upon any moderate view as skeptical. And FWIW, I obviously know which it is, and I also know how you've reacted to me, which makes me wonder how many others you've mislabeled. ATren (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re WMC: When people disagree about whether there's any bias in an article, I've found they may be looking at different criteria, for instance tone versus the amount of space given to opposing views. One article I recently started working on, however, Climate change denial, was clearly biased. Look through the old version of the lead, here, and consider that it 1.) adopts a pejorative in saying that "denial campaigns have been promoted," 2.) attributes the phrase not just to ExxonMobil, but "companies like ExxonMobil" (emphasis added), 3.) emphasizes journalistic use of the phrase, 4.) omits criticism of the phrase, 5.) completely misrepresents the last source, found here. I will note that Ling.Nut and I were able to fix all of these without much problem, and of course we're talking about GoRight here. But look then at the last issues he has been discussing. On Jim Inhofe he says the lead shouldn't be so specific about Inhofe's positions.[98] I see there a statement that Inhofe is known for his "general opposition to LGBT rights"; whether GoRight is correct in full, clearly it is at least somewhat problematic to present someone's position as opposition to rights (I might propose "general opposition to the recognition of LGBT rights," or "the movement for LGBT rights" as other options, though quite likely those saying it should not be summarized in the lead are correct). The previous article was Ian Plimer, where GoRight argued against including a section on a televised debate.[99] See the section here. Again here, clearly at least the last sentence fails NPOV (Plimer's opponent saying Plimer didn't do well), and it has now been removed. On Richard Lindzen GoRight argues against material relating to skepticism of the health risks of smoking; when I look at the current paragraph I disagree, but when I look at a version from a couple of weeks ago I can see the need to complain.[100] The question I have is whether these kinds of issues would be improved if editors like GoRight were not highlighting them and pushing for improvement. Perhaps the articles directly on the science don't need improvement, but the articles on the political controversies (including the BLPs) seem to need quite some work as part of an ongoing two-way struggle. Mackan79 (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Could be. Without accepting your point, I'll note that it is a subtlety that those claiming a pro-GW POV have failed to articulate above. I've generally been more interested in the science articles. You are, however, entirely incorreect to say that the new version of CCD is better; removing "denial campaigns have been promoted," was a step away from NPOV William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think GoRight has behavioral traits, like a lot of editors, that can be a problem if you really want them to be (I don't say this of people who make personal attacks, but I'm not seeing that here). If the long-term goal is to end up with a group of hyper vigilant policy wonks editing these pages I'd say fine, but I'm a little skeptical that that is where this is going. If it's not his discussion style, as some are saying, then it seems to be that he disagrees with the majority too much. But who thinks he's doing this just to cause a stir, and not out of real disagreement? If it's the latter then I would think the strongest option is to ignore, not to block. It's odd to me when people seem to think a consensus model requires that people don't speak up where they disagree with something in good faith. Close the discussions if necessary, sanction someone for specific things that are not allowed (forum shopping, or misrepresenting discussions for example), but we shouldn't need to ban people just because they are insistent on a minority viewpoint. Mackan79 (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But who thinks he's doing this just to cause a stir, and not out of real disagreement? Without expressing an opinion on either of these alternatives, I wish to note that they are not mutually exclusive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think GR's behavior reflects his stated intentions and concerns. (Tag teaming POVs, biting newcomers and processes abusing Wikipedia principles in the project.) It could be a mutually inclusive waste, where GR is taking on many and the result is then to become a central target. 00:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "time wasting" argument is central to this case. I wonder if one of those (perhaps 2/0 or TS) who have made this argument could expand on this a bit. I am sympathetic to the view that admins are volunteers and have a lot on their plate. What I don't get though is what exactly GR has done to waste their time. It seems at first blush that unless GR is filing frivolous complaints, the only time expended is in responding to his arguments in various forums. The disconnect for me there is that if he were not making valid points, no response would be required and so no time would be wasted (ok, so it does take a little time to read his post), and if on the other hand he is making valid (or at least reasonable) points, how can responding to them be a waste of time? JPatterson (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight himself expands amply on this question, by way of demonstration. Bear in mind that this discussion was originally a 1,000-word treatise[101] tacked on to an already decided matter on this page.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/GoRight_on_Pcarbonn

By the time I budded it off to its own page it had reached about 10kb in size. At GoRight's last comment there it was around 32kb of completely redundant, extraneous argumentation about an affair that was done and dusted before he chose to intervene. --TS 02:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

On the question of frivolous complaints, see GoRight's filings at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. There comes a point where even the most patient administrator will say "this guy is taking the piss." --TS 00:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I know this shouldn't technically be a vote, but honestly, this is starting to look a little abusive. Things like this put a bad taste in peoples mouth regarding Wikipedia. GoRight is one of the editors here that is trying to prevent Wikipedia from becoming the joke that it is sadly becoming.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector (talk • contribs) 16:40, 19 January 2010
• Support for the reasons already mentioned. GoRight seems just to be gaming the system. Mathsci (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So why did Tony Sidaways remove the bolding from support and oppose statements? I'm sort of used to this wikilawyering and suppression of democracy, but this is rather blatant. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"suppression of democracy" -------> Wikipedia is not a democracy -------> Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it was obviously a poll/vote, and while certain people are happy to ignore the opinions of others, this was obviously edited to make it look less like a poll was occuring for one simple reason - Abd is allowed to comment on polls. But hey, if we can make it not look like a poll then we can ban Abd right? Honestly, you act like people don't poll on these pages all the time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

consensus discussions are not polls and are not votes, even if they look like one..... They can still be closed against the majority if the arguments of the minority are good enough and they are well based in policy. Seriously, it's all at the "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" link that I posted right above, I don't have to repeat it here. And I just noticed that Wikipedia:Consensus#Community_discussions_and_polls is even more clear in this aspect.

The root problem here is that Abd's arbcomm restriction prevented him from "discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party", but it allowed him to comment at polls. An already closed AE thread said that, looking at the arb comments and the spirit of the ruling, XfDs discussions entered into the "polls" definition. There is a request for clarification going on about this topic, but it has been losing focus as the situation has kept moving. You could comment there and ask arbs to clarify (I already asked them to do that) But I expect that arbs will only agree to define "poll" inside the meaning of that specific ruling, and that they will refuse to start defining stuff that is out of the scope of a dispute that they are solving. I would love to start a very long discussion on this, but this stuff belongs to the talk pages of WT:CONSENSUS and WP:POLLING.

Since the "is this a poll or not" discussion has nothing to do with GoRight being blocked, I won't discuss this matter here anymore. If you want to discuss the "poll or not" thing then please do it where Abd is being discussed. The request for clarification that I linked above would be a good start. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So is that why the bolding was removed? As someone who is, so far, only reading this discussion & otherwise disinterested in the matter, I found the lack of bolding unusual & made my understanding this thread more difficult. I'm restoring it with a warning that removing the bolding because "this is not a vote" is disruptive & likely to make me sanction for being a jerk. -- llywrch (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The block has remained for 4 days now ... I've read the discussions and it seems like the issues have become so loquciously mired that it is difficult to take home a simple lesson here. Is the indefinite block to prevent GoRight from intervening in others disputes like was done for Abd? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If GoRight's block is being upheld to prevent a disruptive waste of time by volunteers, then there must be an ipso facto assumption of bad faith in both GoRight and the other editors for investing their time. I consider my time well made in commenting on GoRight. I found little support for "time wasting" as a legitimate block, except for socks and vandals. Pursuing peaceful dispute resolution is civil. When absurd points are raised, there may be a concern if the editor continues after warning. I've seen little to suggest GoRight was being absurd or specifically warned for absurd points. GoRight's actions appear to have been sensible disputes in articles under probation scrutiny. There may have been other uncivil concerns for GoRight's style; however, do they really warrant an indefinite block? The normal method is to ignore an editor who makes distracting comments. Here, GoRight is blocked and given a significant amount of attention. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do have any comment on TS's concern regarding resurrecting cases that have been "closed"? I think at some point we all have to recognize that no process is perfect and not every perceived injustice can be overturned. PCarbon had other avenues of appeal open to them and that it seems to me would have been a better forum for GR to raise his concerns. And while I support the block being lifted, I don't see your WP:AWG argument. I don't think anyone has argued that it was GR's intent to waste time or that that was his motivation. JPatterson (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpat34721, admin Viridae first blocked GoRight for "being a complete waste of time" [102] without diffs. Then admin 2over0 goes on to provide many diffs and blocks GoRight "For this wanton disrespect for the time and efforts of others" among other reasons [103]. 2over0 apears to have applied an elaborated and veiled translation on Viridae's intentions. Both these blocks intended to cure time issues by GoRights contributions, which were being considered disruptive (like a vandal). GoRight's intentions to waste others time has not been established, it seems to be a bad faith assumption on the blockers part. I can appreciate why there is little discussion on these "time wasting" claims for GoRight's block, there is simply little support for this argument in wikipedia guidance and policy. If there were, nearly all new comers would be bitten hard. There are simply editors who have little patience and those that have great patience. Here, the impatient ones get bored, creatively elaborate on "problematic" concerns and punish the messenger (of policing Wikipedia principles) as an interesting and productive effort for their time. Said simply, attention deficit leads to disruptions. (This pattern is seen time over time in the classroom too.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would urge you to read the essay at WP:COMPETENCE. While I think that few of us doubt GoRight's honest, heartfelt, enthusiastic, dedicated interest in improving Wikipedia, his approach to so doing frequently contravenes Wikipedia policy. It has made already-contentious areas significantly less comfortable to work in. After repeated offers of guidance, cautions, and warnings, it seems that he is unwilling or unable to change his approach in a manner compatible with Wikipedia's collegial, collaborative editing environment. Even after Viridae's previous indefinite block a couple of weeks ago – which ought to have caught the attention of any editor – he persisted in being combative and unpleasant. This isn't a failure on the part of editors to assume good faith. It is simply a frank assessment that despite GoRight's good faith efforts, he is unable to contribute in a net-positive way to the project. We ask him to take his leave, and wish him well in his future endeavours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points TenOfAllTrades; however, the diffs presented for a block show little support for them. There comes a point where well intended administrative actions can become a form of sophisticated harassment. When in doubt, I sugest going with your first hunch about the the editor (GoRight's) intentions. This editor simply wants the right thing, like thier name says. Righteousness can be rigidly annoying, hence ignore all rules and go by the gut. Also look again, there are a good few counted here that see GoRight's benefit to the project. Reforming is GoRight's way ... and I have faith the reformation will begin with the editor ... as how can an editor who wants the right thing do something wrong to start ... unless they are human and not perfectly competent? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose , and I offer apology for this unasked-for opinion. I appreciate the tenacious efforts of Go Right to present the opposing view in the various anthropogenic-global-warming-related articles. I lost the heart and the stomach to do so. Silencing dissent through administrative process has become a disturbing trend in this space, and goes to the very heart of what GoRight and other skeptics assert is happening at various institutions of higher learning. Some editors are aggravated by GoRight's antics, or claim that the system is being gamed. I put it to you that some of the very same editors who have commented in this space have been (from time to time) blocked for their various (perceived) misdeeds, and that their primary objection to GoRight's continued editing is philosophical, not procedural. Nightmote (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• I think the way forward to to forge an agreement that takes into account GoRight's right to avail himself of the processes and procedures available to all editors here while recognizing that the (over)use of these procedures can be a significant drain on valuable resources. My take on the consensus thus far is that most agree that the penalty/reward ratio for GR's involvement on various AN/ANI boards has been increasing of late. I would be interested in thoughts about how to reverse that trend short of the sledgehammer that is currently being used to solve the problem. JPatterson (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that part of the problem is the inability to park past grievances or accept the closure of any debate - rather like WP:NOPONY cited elsewhere. When every single argument rapidly degenerates into long rambling dissertations on the evil Wikipedia establishment's preference for overwhelming scientific consensus over FUD spread by powerful vested interests (oh, sorry, did I just give away my personal bias?) then it's very hard to make progress. Likewise when debate turns into WP:PANTO. I suggest we punt this to Wikipedia:BASC at least as a request for advice. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight [104] commented here during the block. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that "closure" is not possible when the debate is ongoing. When the experts themselves cannot reach consensus, isn't it unreasonable to expect laymen to do so? Defense of the minority opinion is not only desirable, it is necessary for the presentation of balanced articles on current events. Even a casual glance at edit counts supports the position that GoRight hasn't been as distracting as is posited. Nightmote (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation Guy. My experience has been that rules are consistently misinterpreted and inconsistently applied - I guess that's alright in the name of "Wikipedia establishment's preference for overwhelming scientific consensus." I think I'm going to start claiming all my edits are backed by "overwhelming scientific consensus" - maybe then I won't have to worry about those pesky rules. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, but only because we're looking at it from different angles. Consider a point made in An Inconvenient Truth: if I recall the detail aright, a review of scientific review publications found 0% dissent from the view that global levels of CO2 and temperature are rising and that this is due to human activity. A review of popular press articles showed 53% dissent from that. It has become politically highly polarised in the US, with the right opposed to any action on climate change, but the US right is much further to the right than the generality of the developed world so this view is much more marginal outside the US; also I think Europeans are more inclined to believe scientists than politicians. I see a lot of parallels with the evolution debate, where evangelicals focus on "teach the controversy" whereas outside of the USA support for literal creationism drops off pretty sharply in Europe's predominantly Christian countries. So there is a tension between one group that sees it as a political issue and therefore wants to maximise exposure of every element of dispute and another that sees it as a scientific debate so naturally focuses on the near-unanimity on the scientific basis, combined with differences as to the prominence of those two schools of thought dependeing on where you happen to live. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What's deplorable about WP:NOPONY is discussions start off that way ... then progress to "don't waste our time" trying as in GoRight's case and then some form of harassment. This disruptive pattern of negativity must be directed to productive means. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

I second GoRight's motion to close [105]. A productive outcome here is missing. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.